Tatum v. Mitchell et al

Filing 105

ORDER granting in part 96 Motion to Compel; denying 101 Motion for Reconsideration. Defendants must comply with the instructions in this Order on or before September 2, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 8/18/2014. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EASTERN DIVISION

ANTWAN TATUM
ADC #143961
V.

PLAINTIFF
2:13CV00151 DPM/JTR

MITCHELL, Sergeant,
East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff, Antwan Tatum, has filed this pro se action alleging that Defendants
used excessive force against him, failed to protect him from harm, and failed to
provide him with adequate medical care for his injuries. Plaintiff has recently filed
two non-dispositive Motions, which the Court will address separately.
I. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration
Plaintiff has filed a Motion asking the Court to reconsider its July 14, 2014
Order that granted in part and denied in part his Third and Fourth Motions to Compel.
Docs. 64, 70, 94, and 101. Plaintiff has not provided a sufficient reason for the Court
to reconsider its prior rulings. Thus, his Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
II. Plaintiff's Fifth Motion to Compel
On June 5, 2014, Plaintiff sent Defendants a request for production seeking
copies of all prison policies that "officers are directed to follow when an inmate has

been injured in his cell." Doc. 82 at 1. Defendants answered by stating that the
request was over broad and burdensome. Doc. 98 at 4. They then explained to
Plaintiff that he could review all prison policies in the prison law library, and request
copies of any of policies he believed to be relevant to his claims. Id. After doing so,
Plaintiff asked the Ouachita River Unit ("ORU") Program Coordinator for copies of
ORU policies 3.7.0, 4.1.0, 10.5.0, 2.5.0, and 9.1.0 - 9.31.0. Id. at 3. The ORU
Program Coordinator denied Plaintiff's request because unspecified "security and
control issues" prevented prisoners from having copies of those policies. Id.
Plaintiff then filed the current Motion to Compel asking the Court to require
Defendants to produce copies of those policies. Doc. 96. In their response to that
Motion, Defendants erroneously state that Plaintiff: (1) has not made any "specific
requests for policies"; and (2) can obtain copies of the policies from the prison library.
Doc. 100 at 1. Additionally, Defendants state that "if Plaintiff has difficulty acquiring
a specific document, the ADC Defendants have agreed to provide a copy to him." Id.

As previously explained, Plaintiff has been unable to obtain copies of the
policies from the ORU library. Thus, Defendants must, within fourteen days of this
Order, either: (1) provide Plaintiff with copies of ORU policies 3.7.0, 4.1.0, 10.5.0,
2.5.0, and 9.1.0 - 9.31.0; or (2) file a Supplemental Response that contains sealed
-2-

copies of those policies and a detailed explanation of the specific security issues that
prevent them from providing copies of those policies, or portions thereof, to Plaintiff.
III. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 101) is DENIED.

2.

Plaintiff's Fifth Motion to Compel (Doc. 96) is GRANTED IN PART.

3.

Defendants must comply with the instructions in this Order on or before

September 2, 2014.
Dated this 18th day of August, 2014.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-