Freeman v. Woolston et al

Filing 118

Minute Order. ORDERED that the Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff's Motion to Request In Camera Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(e) 114 is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff's Motion Compel Discovery Material Pursu ant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 100 is DENIED. ORDERED that the BOP Staff shall, within 15 days, make those documents that are subject to the Protective Order 69 and not to be Retained by Inmate available for further review by the Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 7/11/12.(lygsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01756-DME-MJW
MARCUS L. FREEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
WOOLSTON, Vocational Instructor, and
LIKEN, Education Department,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that the Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff’s Motion to Request
In Camera Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(e) (docket no. 114) is DENIED for the
following reasons.
Plaintiff requests that this court conduct an in camera review of document Bates
number BOP00944. The files mentioned in the email located in Bates number
BOP00944 do not relate to the Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff. See Surreply and exhibits
attached (docket no. 113). Further, Defendants have already produced a copy of
BOP00944 as an exhibit to the Surreply (docket no. 113). The July 6, 2010, use of
force packet and associated videos have already been reviewed by the Pro Se
Incarcerated consistent with the Protective Order (docket no. 69). As to the eighteen
pages of redacted or partially redacted documents in which Defendants have claimed
privilege [i.e., Privacy Act and the Law Enforcement Privilege], Defendants’ counsel has
already provided the Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff with a written privilege log. See
exhibit A-4 & Exhibit A-5 to docket no. 113. The Pro Se Plaintiff has not asserted that
such privileges as asserted by Defendants are not legitimate. Accordingly, the subject
motion (docket no. 114) should be DENIED.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff’s Motion Compel
Discovery Material Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (docket no. 100) is
DENIED for the following reasons.
I find that the subject motion (docket no. 100) does not specify or detail what
“discovery material” the Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff seeks to compel nor does it
indicate which papers may be missing in a specific document that has been disclosed

2
by Defendants as required under D.C.COLO.LCivR 37.1. Pro Se litigants must “comply
with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil . . . Procedure.” Odgen
v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). The fact that a party is
appearing pro se does not relieve that individual from the obligation of complying with all
applicable rules of the court. Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (pro
se plaintiffs are held to the same rules of procedure which apply to other litigants); Hall
v. Doering, 997 F. Supp. 1464, 1468 (D. Kan. 1998); People v. Carter, 678 F. Supp.
1484, 1490 (D. Colo. 1986). It is not the proper function of the district court to assume
the role of advocate for the pro se litigant. Gibson v. City of Cripple Creek, 48 F.3d
1231 (10th Cir. 1995).
I further find that the Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff is not arguing that he did not
receive Defendants’ documents with Bates numbers BOP0001 through BOP0891,
inclusive, nor is he arguing that he did not have an opportunity to review documents
Bates numbers BOP0892 through BOP1006, inclusive, which are subject to the
Protective Order - Not to be Retained by Inmate. See docket no. 69. These documents
[Bates numbers BOP0892 through BOP1006, inclusive] include disciplinary documents
and the Use of Force packets relating to the incidents at issue in this case. Moreover, I
find that Defendants’ counsel, as an officer of the court, has stated in the response
(docket no. 102) that she has confirmed with BOP staff that Plaintiff had the opportunity
to review these documents [Bates numbers BOP0892 through BOP1006 inclusive] from
May 22 to May 24, 2012. See response (docket no. 102) at page 2. Accordingly, I
concluded that the Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof
for an Order compelling discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Nevertheless, noting that
the Pro Se Plaintiff is incarcerated and in the interest of justice and fundamental
fairness, the Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff should be permitted to review for a second
time those documents [Bates numbers BOP0892 through BOP1006 inclusive] that are
subject to the Protective Order (docket no. 69).
It is therefore ORDERED that the BOP Staff shall, within 15 days from the date of
this minute order, make those documents [Bates numbers BOP0892 through BOP1006
inclusive] that are subject to the Protective Order (docket no. 69) and not to be Retained
by Inmate [Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff] available for further review by the Pro Se
Incarcerated Plaintiff. The Pro Se Incarcerated Plaintiff shall be given an additional six
hours to review these documents over the next 15 days at times determined by the
correctional facility staff.
Date: July 11, 2012