Logan v. Clemmons et al

Filing 69

ORDER denying 67 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel discovery, impose sanctions, and issue an injunction; directing the Clerk to send a copy of the order and Plaintiff's motion to the office of the inspector general for the Florida Department of Corrections. Signed by Judge Brian J. Davis on 4/2/2020. (KLC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
JAMES ALEXANDER LOGAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:17-cv-765-J-39PDB

T. A. SPREADLY,
Defendant.
______________________________
ORDER
Plaintiff, an inmate of the Florida Department of Corrections
(FDOC), is proceeding on a pro se civil rights complaint (Doc. 1;
Compl.)

against

a

corrections

officer,

Sergeant

Spreadly.1

Plaintiff alleges Defendant Spreadly failed to intervene when his
cellmate attacked him with a knife on December 15, 2016. See Compl.
at 9, 13. In the motion before the Court, Plaintiff seeks an order
compelling discovery, imposing spoliation sanctions against the
Office of the Inspector General (IG) for the FDOC, and granting
him injunctive relief (Doc. 67; Motion).
Motion to Compel
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the FDOC to obtain and
produce video and photographic evidence of the December 15, 2016
attack. See Motion at 2. In a request for production (Doc. 67-1;

The Court entered an order dismissing the other Defendants.
See Order (Doc. 63).
1

Pl. Ex.), Plaintiff requested Defendant Spreadly produce “all
video evidence from December 15, 2016.” See Pl. Ex. at 1. Plaintiff
did

not

request

photographic

evidence.

Defendant

responded,

agreeing to provide video evidence of the incident to the extent
it was available. Id. Plaintiff asserts defense counsel later
informed him that no video evidence exists. See Motion at 2.
Plaintiff contends the video evidence was “destroyed knowingly and
intentionally by the [IG’s] office.” Id.
Defendant Spreadly opposes Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc.
68; Def. Resp.). Spreadly asserts he responded to Plaintiff’s
request for production, and he offers the declarations of two FDOC
employees showing defense counsel requested that the IG’s office
provide any available video evidence or investigation report. See
Def. Resp. at 1-2. Frank Freihofer, a classification supervisor at
Suwannee Correctional Institution (68-1; Freihofer Dec.), avers
“there

is

no

video

or

audio

captured

in

that

area

of

the

correctional institution”2 and thus no such evidence could be
“provided to the Office of the Attorney General responsive to their

It is unclear to what “area” Mr. Freihofer is referring.
The incident that is the subject of Plaintiff’s complaint occurred
inside his cell, an area that would not be captured on video. See
Compl. at 11. However, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Spreadly
ignored Plaintiff’s request for help and walked away from
Plaintiff’s cell knowing another inmate planned to pass a knife to
Plaintiff’s cellmate. Id. at 11-12. Mr. Freihofer does not state
whether any camera could have captured these events, which
presumably occurred in a hall or common area outside Plaintiff’s
cell.
2

2

request.” Freihofer Dec. ¶ 3. And, Freihofer continues, under the
FDOC policy, video footage is retained for only thirty days, which
in this case “would have elapsed on January 14, 2017.”3 Id. ¶ 4.
Leslie Rodes, an executive secretary for the FDOC (Doc. 68-2; Rodes
Dec.), avers the IG’s office did not investigate the December 15,
2016

incident,

but

rather

“referred

[the

incident]

back

to

Management for handling at the institution level.” Rodes Dec. ¶ 3.
Upon review, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel
the FDOC to obtain and produce video evidence. The FDOC is not a
party to this action, and FDOC employees have averred there is no
video evidence of the December 15, 2016 incident. To the extent
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant Spreadly to produce
video evidence, the Court cannot compel Defendant to produce that
which does not exist.4
Motion for Sanctions
Plaintiff moves the Court to impose sanctions against the
IG’s

office

in

the

amount

of

$150,000

for

“knowingly

and

intentionally destroying favorable evidence,” including videos and

Notably, Plaintiff submitted a formal grievance within days
of the incident, on December 19, 2016 (Doc. 1-1; Compl. Ex.),
requesting that video footage be retained in accordance with the
FDOC Procedure Mr. Freihofer references in his declaration:
602.033. See Compl. Ex. at 4.
3

And because Plaintiff did not request photographic evidence
in his request for production, there is no basis upon which to
compel the disclosure of such evidence to the extent any exists.
4

3

photos. See Motion at 3. Plaintiff says he submitted a grievance
shortly after the incident, requesting video and photo evidence
“be saved for federal litigation.” Id. at 2. See also Compl. Ex.
at 4-5.5 In his motion, Plaintiff asserts the IG’s office conspired
to cover up the December 15, 2016 stabbing incident by destroying
evidence and refusing to investigate. See Motion at 2. He says
such conduct amounts to spoliation of evidence. Id. at 4.
In response, Defendant Spreadly says he did not have custody
or control of video evidence and thus had no duty to preserve it.
See Def. Resp. at 3.
Spoliation

sanctions

are

not

warranted

against

the

IG’s

office because the IG is not a party to this action. And Plaintiff
fails

to

show

sanctions

are

appropriate

against

Defendant

Spreadly.
For a spoliation sanction to apply, it is
essential that the evidence in question be
within the party’s control, that is, the party
actually destroyed or was privy to the
destruction of the evidence. Further, the
party having control over the evidence must
have an obligation to preserve it at the time
it was destroyed, and generally be on notice
of a claim or potential claim at the time of
the destruction.

The Warden’s office approved his grievance on December 30,
2016, and referred Plaintiff’s complaint to the IG’s office for
“appropriate action.” See Compl. Ex. at 3. The grievance responder
did not specifically address Plaintiff’s request to retain video
footage, and based on Mr. Freihofer’s declaration, it is unclear
whether any such footage ever existed.
5

4

Watson v. Edelen, 76 F. Supp. 3d 1332, 1343 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
Plaintiff fails to show Defendant Spreadly destroyed or was privy
to an alleged destruction of evidence. Moreover, Plaintiff does
not show Defendant Spreadly had an obligation to preserve video
evidence,

knew

of

Plaintiff’s

request

that

video

footage

be

retained, or knew of Plaintiff’s intention to file a lawsuit before
he did so in July 2017.
Thus,

the

Court

denies

Plaintiff’s

motion

to

impose

spoliation sanctions.
Request for Injunctive Relief
While unclear, it appears Plaintiff moves the Court for
injunctive relief in the event he and Defendant are unable to
settle the case.6 See Motion at 5.

Plaintiff asks the Court to

grant him “injunct[ive] relief to [be] housed alone or in an open
bay dorm.” Id.
Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief does not comply
with this Court’s Local Rules, which require that a motion for
injunctive

relief

be

affidavits

showing

the

supported
movant

is

by

a

verified

threatened

complaint

with

or

irreparable

injury, describe precisely the conduct sought to be enjoined, and
include

a

supporting

4.05(b)(1)-(4),

4.06.

memorandum
Moreover,

of

law.

courts

See

M.D.

generally

Fla.
will

R.
not

Plaintiff says he has engaged Defendant Spreadly in
settlement discussions. See Motion at 4. See also Pl. Ex. at 2.
6

5

interfere

in

matters

of

prison

administration,

including

an

inmate’s custody status or location of confinement. See Bell v.
Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547-48 (1979) (“[T]he operation of our
correctional

facilities

is

peculiarly

the

province

of

the

Legislative and Executive Branches . . . not the Judicial.”). Thus,
the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.
Alleged Destruction of Video Evidence
The Court finds concerning that defense counsel does not
acknowledge or address that Plaintiff submitted a formal grievance
to the Warden’s office requesting that video footage “be saved for
federal litigation.” See Motion at 2. Plaintiff submitted a formal
grievance on December 19, 2016, see Compl. Ex. at 4, and expressly
requested the FDOC retain video footage pursuant to FDOC Procedure
602.033(11), which provides as follows:
Requests by inmates for video segments to
be retained in excess of the thirty (30)-day
period in conjunction with formal grievance
submissions will be evaluated by a staff
member designated by the Warden to determine
if the video segment specifically requested
provides
information
supportive
of
the
inmate’s allegations or not. If not, the
segment will not be retained and the inmate
will be advised of this decision and the basis
upon which it is made (i.e., the video segment
does not support the alleged issues asserted
in the grievance). If the decision is made
that the video segment is to be retained, the
steps outlined in section (15) below will be
followed.

6

Not only did Plaintiff submit a formal grievance before the
thirty-day retention period expired, see Compl. Ex. at 4, the
Warden’s office approved his grievance on December 30, 2016, also
within the thirty-day retention period, and referred Plaintiff’s
complaint to the IG’s office for “appropriate action.” Id. at 3.
In the grievance response, the Warden’s representative did not
inform Plaintiff the video footage he requested was reviewed and
found not to support his allegations.
Upon review of the file, it is unclear whether video footage
of the incident never existed or whether any such footage existed
and was destroyed. It is also unclear whether, if any video footage
existed, it was sent to the IG’s office when Plaintiff’s complaint
was referred immediately after the incident and if so, whether the
IG’s office returned or destroyed the footage when it declined to
investigate the incident.
While the Court is troubled by the suggestion that video
footage may have intentionally been destroyed after Plaintiff
timely requested it be retained, for reasons stated in this Order,
Defendant

Spreadly

cannot

be

destruction of video evidence

held

to

(if any)

account

for

alleged

of the December 2016

incident. However, in light of Plaintiff’s suggestion that video
footage was intentionally destroyed by a non-party, the Court
directs the clerk to send a copy of this Order and Plaintiff’s

7

motion (Doc. 67) to the IG’s office for any action or investigation
that may be warranted.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 2nd day of
April, 2020.

Jax-6
c:

James Logan
Counsel of record

8