Bryant v. Hobbs et al

Filing 118

ORDER denying 112 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 6/27/13. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
DALE BRYANT,
ADC #99472
v.

PLAINTIFF

5:12CV00226-SWW-JTK

RAY HOBBS, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 112). Defendants
filed a Response in opposition to the Motion (Doc. No. 117).
In his Motion, Plaintiff complains that Defendants will not provide him with copies of his
medical records, and will not provide him access to his medical records in 1996. Plaintiff claims that
Defendant Simmons changed a medication prescribed to him in 1996, which has resulted in harm,
and that he needs the medical records to prove his claim. Defendants object to Plaintiff’s request,
stating that Plaintiff stated in his Complaint that his problems started in June, 2011, and that medical
records prior to that time period are irrelevant to his claim. They also note that Plaintiff failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to the medication claim against Defendant
Simmons, which they will move to dismiss in a future summary judgment motion. They also state
that production of records from 1996 would be unduly burdensome, overly broad, and irrelevant to
his claims. Plaintiff has been permitted to review his medical records from the past few years and
Defendants have arranged for Plaintiff to review his records for extended periods of time.
Having reviewed the Motion and Response, the Court finds that it should be denied.
Defendants have permitted, and indicate they will continue to permit, Plaintiff to review his medical
records. Plaintiff himself acknowledged in his Motion that ADC policy prohibits inmates from

1

possessing copies of their medical records, for security purposes. In addition, it appears that the
records from 1996 are irrelevant to Plaintiff’s current claims, especially if Plaintiff failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.
Plaintiff

also

asks

for

training

records

and

written

“acknowledgments

of

reading/receiving/understanding of Policies/Procedures/Memorandums/Training” for seven of the
medical Defendants. (Doc. No. 112, p. 8.) He states such is relevant to determining if a lack of
training was responsible for Defendants’ actions of deliberate indifference. Defendants again object,
stating that personnel records are not relevant to whether their actions constituted deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. In addition, they note that they cannot be held
liable under § 1983 for the violation of policies, and that internal policies and directives do not
themselves create a constitutional right, citing Kennedy v. Blankenship, 100 F.3d 640, 643 (8th Cir.
1996).
The Court agrees with Defendants that such records are irrelevant to proving whether their
conduct constituted deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 112) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of June, 2013.

______________________________________
JEROME T. KEARNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2