Sandlin v. Humphrey et al

Filing 118

ORDER denying 103 Motion to Compel; denying 112 Motion for Order; denying 115 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry L. Jones, Jr on 11/30/09. (bkp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HELENA DIVISION CHRISTOPHER R. SANDLIN, ADC #136830 v. MICHEAL T. HUMPHREY, et al. ORDER This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's motions to compel, for order that criminal charges be filed, and for reconsideration (DE ##103, 112, 115). Defendants have filed a response to the motion to compel (DE #117). In the motion to compel, plaintiff asks for the following: copies of Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) computer hard drives, military records of the defendants, all internal investigation reports from the past three years, a list of cell extractions in the past three years, an inventory list of all weapons kept at the East Arkansas Regional Unit (EARU), a list of all Unit employees who have been fired or suspended for use of excessive force, copies of emails received by thirty-four ADC employees over the past three years, a list of employees on the Unit's ERT team for twelve dates, a list of excessive force incidents in the past three years, and a list of the number of computerized voice stress analyses conducted in the past three years. In their response, defendants state that they have responded in good faith to all plaintiff's prior discovery requests, and that the items listed in the present motion have not previously been requested by plaintiff. Defendants also object to the requests as presenting security problems and as irrelevant to the issues set forth in plaintiff's complaint. Based on the defendants' response, the Court will deny plaintiff's motion to compel. The Court will also deny plaintiff's motion for the Court to file criminal charges against 2:09CV00051HLJ DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF

defendant Greg Harmon for perjury. The Court does not have the authority to file such charges, or to direct they be filed by law enforcement officials. Finally, the Court finds that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's November 4, 2009 Order denying his motion for the appointment of counsel, should be denied at this time, without prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that plaintiff's motions to compel and for order to file criminal charges (DE ##103, 112) are hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's denial of his motion for appointment of counsel (DE #115) is hereby DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of November, 2009.

____________________________________ United States Magistrate Judge