Jackson v. Officer Gula et al
Filing
100
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 09/15/14. (etg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
KEVIN J. JACKSON,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
) Civ. No. 13-233-SLR
)
v.
OFFICER GULA, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM
1. Background. Plaintiff, a former inmate at FCI Cumberland, Cumberland,
Maryland, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 alleging that excessive force
occurred on February 26, 2011 during an incident with Wilmington police officers that
resulted in injuries and his hospitalization. 1 He proceeds pro se and has been granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Currently pending are numerous motions filed by
the parties. (D.I. 68, 69, 70, 71, 86, 90, 92)
2. Motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff moves for leave to amend to identify
defendants "unknown officers" and add claims against them. (D.I. 68) The court
previously denied plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the complaint to add defendants
(D. I. 59) and advised plaintiff to comply with Local Rule 15.1 which provides that a party
who moves to amend a pleading shall attach to the motion the proposed pleading, as
amended, and shall indicate in what respects it differs from the pleading which it
amends. (See D.I. 63, citing D. Del. LR 15.1) Plaintiff's first motion for leave to amend,
found at docket item 59, only listed the names of the officers. However, his renewed
1
Plaintiff was released from the Federal Bureau of Prisons on February 28, 2014.
(See D.I. 51)
motion provides a description of officers who were present during the February 2011
incident. (D.I. 68) Defendants oppose the motion on the grounds that it does not
comply with Local Rule 15.1. (D.I. 75)
3. The court will grant the motion for leave to amend. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a), a party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course within twenty-one
days after serving it or, if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required,
twenty-one days after service of a responsive pleading or twenty-one days after service
of a Rule 12(b) motion, whichever is earlier. Otherwise, a party may amend its pleading
only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. Rule 15 provides
that courts should freely give leave to amend when justice so requires. The Third
Circuit has adopted a liberal approach to the amendment of pleadings to ensure that "a
particular claim will be decided on the merits rather than on technicalities." Dole v. Arco
Chem. Co., 921 F.2d 484, 486-87 (3d Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). Plaintiff proceeds
prose and, therefore, is given some latitude. He has now identified the "unknown
officers" and provided a partial description of their alleged acts. Therefore, plaintiff will
be ordered to file an amended complaint that incorporates his proposed amendments
and the identified officers. 2
4. Motions for protective order and for sanctions. Defendants move for
protective orders to preclude plaintiff from propounding additional interrogatories
beyond the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (D.I. 70) and to preclude
2
The court has amended the scheduling order to extend discovery. It will be
further amended upon the filing of an amended complaint and service of newly added
defendants.
2
plaintiff from propounding interrogatories upon non-party Officer Satterfield
("Satterfield"). (D.I. 71) Plaintiff opposes the motions and moves for sanctions to
compel defendants to answer the interrogatories and to further sanction defendants
because defense counsel wrote him letters rather than file documents. (D.I. 69, 89, 90)
The court will deny defendants' motions for protective orders without prejudice to renew
and will deny plaintiff's motions for sanctions. Plaintiff is admonished to follow the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when pursuing discovery and, in particular, with the
number of interrogatories propounded. Sanctions are not warranted inasmuch as
defendants complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in declining to answer
interrogatories propounded above the maximum number allowed. Nor do the rules
preclude defendants from writing to plaintiff. Finally, the court will grant plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend (see 11 3, supra) which will add Satterfield as a defendant
once an amended complaint is filed. Thereafter, plaintiff may seek discovery from him
as a party defendant.
5. Defendants' motion for sanctions and plaintiffs deposition. Defendants
move for sanctions and to compel plaintiffs attendance at his deposition. (D.I. 86)
They also move to enlarge the discovery deadline for the limited purpose of deposing
plaintiff. (D.I. 92) The court will deny defendants' motion for sanctions, will grant the
motion to compel plaintiff's attendance at his deposition, and will grant the motion to
enlarge the discovery deadline.
6. The original April 7, 2014 discovery deadline was extended to August 7, 2014
upon motion by plaintiff. (D.I. 56) On May 16, 2014, defendants filed and served
plaintiff with a notice to take his video deposition on July 2, 2014 in Wilmington,
3
Delaware. (D.I. 64) On June 30, 2014, plaintiff filed an opposition to the deposition on
the grounds that he could not ably represent himself. (D.I. 80) On June 30, 2014,
defense counsel made several attempts to contact plaintiff to verify his attendance at
the deposition, but plaintiff did not respond to telephone messages. (D.I. 86, ex. 1)
Plaintiff did not appear at the deposition. (Id.) Defendants seeks sanctions for
plaintiff's failure to attend his deposition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A),
including $609 for court reporter and videographer fees and reasonable attorney fees.
Defendants also seek to compel plaintiff's attendance at his deposition. Plaintiff
opposes the motion on the grounds that he has speech problems, a learning disability
and an ADHD, and is "not able to properly represent [himself] without a lawyer being
present." (D.I. 87) Finally, defendants move to enlarge the discovery deadline for the
limited purpose of taking plaintiff's deposition. (D.I. 92) Again, plaintiff opposes the
motion on the grounds that he is not qualified to represent himself during a deposition.
(D.I. 93)
7. Sanctions are available when a party fails to appear for the party's deposition
after being served with proper notice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1 ). Given plaintiff's prose
status and, that prior to the deposition, he objected in writing, the court declines to grant
the motion for sanctions. Plaintiff will be ordered to attend his deposition at a time and
place agreed upon by the parties. Plaintiff is placed on notice that should he fail to
attend his deposition, he may be subject to sanctions, including dismissal of the case
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) and (d). The scheduling order will be amended to
extend the time to depose plaintiff.
4
J
f
8. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the court will: (1) grant the motion for
leave to amend (D.I. 68); (2) deny all motions for sanctions (D.I. 69, 86, 90); (3) deny
without prejudice to renew the motions for protective orders (D.I. 70, 71 ); (4) grant the
motion to compel plaintiff's attendance at his deposition (D.I. 86); and (5) grant the
motion to enlarge the discovery deadline (D.I. 91). A separate order shall issue.
Dated: September
15
, 2014
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?