Haynes v. Richmond County Sheriff Office et al

Filing 80

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 75 Motion for Penalty of Perjury; and, denying as moot Plaintiff's 76 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 8/30/2016. (jah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
RODERICK D. HAYNES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
RICHMOND COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________

CV 114-237

ORDER
_________

Plaintiff, an inmate at Rogers State Prison in Reidsville, Georgia, proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis, brings suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Defendant Michael
Garner, a deputy with the Richmond County Sheriff’s Department, used excessive force by
hitting Plaintiff with a patrol car without warning as Plaintiff traversed a parking lot. (Doc.
no. 26.) Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for penalty of perjury (doc. no. 75) and
motion to compel (doc. no. 76).

For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s motion for perjury and motion to compel. (Doc. nos. 75, 76.)
I.

BACKGROUND
On December 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the

Richmond County Sheriff’s Office and Deputy Michael Garner alleging Defendant Garner
intentionally and without warning hit Plaintiff with his Richmond County patrol vehicle.
(Doc. no. 1.) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Richmond County Sheriff’s Office were

later dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Doc. nos. 10, 14.) On or around January 11,
2016, Plaintiff served his first set of interrogatories on Defendant. (Doc. no. 75, p. 1.)
Plaintiff’s Interrogatory #14 asked Defendant if he had been tested for drugs and alcohol by
his employer or anyone else with authority to do so on the date of the collision. (Doc. no. 76,
Ex. 1, Attch. 1.) Defendant originally answered that he had been tested. (Id.) Defendant’s
first responses also contained a verification where he swore under oath his answers were
“true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.” (Doc. no. 78, p. 1.) Later,
Defendant became aware he had not been tested for drugs or alcohol at the time of the
accident, and corrected his initial answer in his responses to Plaintiff’s second set of
interrogatories.

(Doc. no. 76, Ex. 2, Attch. 2.)

Because of Defendant’s conflicting

responses, Plaintiff filed a motion for penalty of perjury. (See doc. no. 75.) Plaintiff also
filed a motion to compel alleging Defendant’s answer to Interrogatory #9 of Plaintiff’s
second set of interrogatories is insufficient. (Doc. no. 76.)
II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Perjury Is Meritless.

A penalty for perjury involves making a false statement knowingly and willfully
under oath. 18 U.S.C. § 1621; O.C.G.A. § 16-10-70. To qualify as perjury, the testimony
must be “given with the willful intent to provide false testimony and not as a result of a
mistake, confusion, or faulty memory.” United States v. Cavallo, 790 F.3d 1202, 1220 (11th
Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255, 1277 n. 34 (11th Cir. 2008)).
Here, Defendant falsely testified in his answers to Plaintiff’s First Set of
Interrogatories he had been tested for drugs and alcohol at the time of the accident.
2

However, Defendant’s false testimony was not intentional; he mistakenly believed he
actually had been tested when he answered the interrogatory. When he discovered the
mistake, Defendant immediately corrected the false answer through his responses to
Plaintiff’s second set of interrogatories.

Therefore, Defendant did not commit perjury.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for penalty for perjury (doc. no. 75) is DENIED.
B.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Is Moot.

Defendant gave a full and responsive answer to Interrogatory #9 of Plaintiff’s Second
Set of Interrogatories. (See doc. no. 76, Ex. 2, Attch. 2.) To the extent Defendant’s answer
did not contain an explicit estimate of distance, Defendant provided an updated answer in its
response to Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. no. 77, p. 2.) Because Defendant’s answer cannot be
properly amended through his response to Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant is instructed to serve
a supplemental, verified response to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories on Plaintiff
within 7 days of this order. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (doc. no. 76) is
DENIED AS MOOT.

3

III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for perjury and

motion to compel. (Doc. nos. 75, 76.)
SO ORDERED this 30th day of August, 2016, at Augusta, Georgia.

4