Williams v. Stewart et al

Filing 127

ORDER denying 125 Motion to Compel; denying 126 Motion for Reconsideration re 122 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 5/4/11. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HELENA DIVISION
DAVID WILLIAMS
ADC #78730
V.

PLAINTIFF
2:10CV00039 JMM

KATHY STEWART, Sgt.,
East Arkansas Regional Unit,
ADC, et al

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Pending is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Motion for Reconsideration. There has
been no response by the Defendants.
On April 18, 2011, the Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations of United
States Magistrate Judge H. David Young and dismissed Plaintiff’s case with prejudice for failure
to introduce sufficient evidence to create a fact issue for a jury. In his Motion for
Reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that he has not submitted sufficient evidence because the
Arkansas Department of Corrections has failed to turn over discovery which he requested. In
support, Plaintiff attaches Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of
Documents DE #39. In the Responses, the Defendants contend that the discovery requested by
the Plaintiff does not exist. The Court cannot order a party to provide discovery documents or
videotapes which do not exist. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (docket # 126)
is DENIED.
Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Compel. The motion is identical to the motion he has
filed in his other cases in this district (Williams v. Horner, Case No. 5:09CV00163 JMM/BD).
Plaintiff states that on April 15, 2011, Property Room Supervisor Price had Plaintiff “sign out”

Case Number 5:09CV00163. When Plaintiff showed Supervisor Price the April 6, 2011 Order
by Judge Deere regarding access to his legal papers, Price stated he would have to “get with
Major Byers.” (Motion to Compel, at p. 3). There is no allegation by Plaintiff that he has been
denied access to his documents in this case, however. On September 27, 2010, the Court entered
an order granting in part Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, and directing that Plaintiff be
allowed to keep and have access to the pleadings and exhibits in this case (docket entry #63).
The injunctive relief granted in this case relates only to access to the pleadings and exhibits in
this case. There is no evidence that Plaintiff does not have such access. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
motion (docket entry #125) is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (docket # 126) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel (docket entry #125) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of May, 2011.

__________________________________
James M. Moody
United States District Judge