Williamson v. Twaddell et al

Filing 59

OPINION: Plaintiff's motions to compel are denied (d/e's 33, 40, 46, 49). Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 11/18/2011. Defendants shall provide to Plaintiff the information directed in paragraph (1) by December 5, 2011. Plaintiff's "Motion Demonstrating Defendants Adverse Actions and Retaliation Claims" is denied to the extent Plaintiff seeks to add new claims to this case or asks for an order prohibiting alleged retaliation. See written Opinion. (MJ, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 18 November, 2011 04:01:21 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
CLARENCE BERNARD
WILLIAMSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM TWADDELL and
RICHARD YOUNG,
Defendants.

10-CV-3325

OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in Western Illinois Correctional
Center, pursues claims arising from the alleged denial of his right to
change and practice his religion. The case is currently in the process of
discovery, with discovery set to close on November 30, 2011.
Before the Court are four motions to compel by Plaintiff, addressed
in turn below.

1

I.

Motion to Compel Defendant Young’s Responses to
Interrogatories (d/e 33)1

A. Interrogatory 1: “Identify any and all documents relating to the
policies and procedures concerning the WARDEN OF PROGRAMS
resolving issues on an institutional level concerning the chaplain’s
office.”2
The Court agrees with Defendants that this request is overly broad
and vague. The Court is uncertain what information Plaintiff seeks.
Further, the Court finds Defendants’ production of the position
description for the Assistant Warden and Defendants’ cite to 20
Ill.Admin.Code § 425 to be responsive.
B. Interrogatory 2: “Identify any and all documents relating to the
correspondence received by the plaintiff religious issues, along with
Richard Young’s standing on the issues presented to him.”
Young responded that he has forwarded any such documents to
Defendant Twaddell and no longer has possession of them. The Court
finds this answer responsive. Plaintiff appears to suspect that Young is
concealing relevant documents, but there is no evidence to support that

1

Defendant Young is the Assistant Warden of Programs.

2

Plaintiff’s requests are set forth verbatim without correction for grammatical
and spelling errors.
2

speculation.
C. Interrogatory 3: “Identify any and all documents that
authorized the chaplain to possess offenders visiting list, access to
offenders master files for copies, access and authority to deny request for
change of religion.”
Young responded that the Chaplain’s job duties give him the
authority to deny a religious change request and the authority to access
an inmate’s master file, which contains an inmate’s visiting list. This
answer is responsive.
D. Interrogatory 5: “Identify any and all documents related to any
complaint, grievance, criticism, censure, reprimand and rebuke directed
toward the defendant William Twaddell concerning his position as
chaplain at Western Ill. Corr. Ctr.”
Young responded that Twaddell’s personnel file does not contain
any documentation of complaints by inmates regarding the denial of
religious accommodation. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks other
information, the Court agrees with Young that this request is overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant information. Evidence
of disciplinary action against Twaddell regarding incidents unrelated to
Plaintiff’s claim would not be relevant to show that Twaddell violated

3

Plaintiff’s religious rights. Nor would such evidence be reasonably
calculated to lead to relevant, admissible evidence. Twaddell’s general
character and competence is not on trial. See Fed. R. Evid.
404(a)(“Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not
admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on
a particular occasion . . .); Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(“Evidence of other . . .
wrongs . . . is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order
to show action in conformity therewith.”). Similarly, to the extent
Plaintiff seeks complaints by other inmates against Twaddell, the Court
agrees with Judge Baker’s order denying this request. Finding these
other grievances would require a review of the master files of thousands
of inmates, a burden which substantially outweighs any imagined
marginal probative value. The fact that another inmate filed a grievance
against Twaddell would show only that he filed a grievance, not that the
grievance had any merit or that the grievance had anything to do with
this case. Plaintiff’s request amounts to a fishing expedition.
II.

Motion to Compel Young to Produce Documents (d/e 40)

4

A. Request 1: “Any and all grievances and complaints recorded by
the Warden of Programs at the Western Illinois Correctional Center,
concerning issues related to the chaplain’s office at W.I.C.C., particularly
William Twaddell.”
For the reasons set forth above, the Court agrees with Young that
this information is overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to relevant, admissible evidence.
B. Request 2: “Any and all policies, procedures, . . . in regards to
the description of the WARDEN OF PROGRAMS; particularly the
position over-seeing the chaplain’s office, grievance office and any related
department related to such.”
Young produced the position description for the Assistant Warden
of Programs, which the Court finds responsive. Plaintiff doubts that the
document produced is the most recent version and believes more
responsive documents exist, but this assertion is speculation.
C. Request 3: “Any notes, documents, letters, memorandas, files,
records, record books, logs, of inmates . . . having issues with the
chaplain’s office; specifically the forwarding of plaintiff’s documents to
the chaplain’s office after receiving grievances concerning such, etc.”
For the reasons set forth above, the Court agrees with Defendants
that this request is unduly broad and burdensome, irrelevant, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to relevant, admissible evidence.
5

D. Request 4: “Any and all records related to the policies, rules,
regulations defining the relationship between the Warden of Programs
Office and the Chaplain’s department; particularly concerning with
accommodating religious identification, religious items, materials and
dietary tenets. In addition, to accommodation with special religious
feasts and programs held at the institution (W.I.C.C.).
Young referred Plaintiff to the position description for the
Assistant Warden of Programs, which the Court finds responsive.
E. Request 5: “Any and all notes, documents . . . regarding the
existing issue between, Mark HOwardsand William Twaddell; issue over
the baptism, identification and dietary tenets accommodated.”
Plaintiff doubts Young’s response that Young has forwarded these
documents, but his doubts are speculation. Young’s answer is
responsive.
F. Request 6: “Any and all notes, documents, files, accounts of
funds used by the Chaplain’s office, or donated materials from religious
organizations with any relation to approval or participation from the
Warden of Programs office, or even clinical services.”
The Court agrees with Young that this request is confusing.
However, from Plaintiff’s motion the Court gleans that he appears to be
seeking information on expenditures by Western on assisting inmates to
practice their various religions at the prison. Plaintiff’s motion argues
6

that “Muslim clergy should be compensated in the same manner as other
clergy, and prison funds allocated for religious purposes should be
distributed proportionately to all groups.” (d/e 40, p. 5).
The information sought seems far afield from Plaintiff’s claim that
he is not permitted to practice his religion. However, disparities in the
funding of religion might be reasonably calculated to lead to relevant
evidence on Plaintiff’s equal protection claim that his religion is treated
less favorably than other religions. The Court will direct a response to
this request.
G. Request 8: “Any and all documents . . . from any religious
Advisory Boards, Administrative Review Board, Director of I.D.O.C.
Deputy Director, Office of Inmate Affairs, concerning the procedures in
arbitrating issues on an institutional level resolving issues; particularly
with the chaplain’s office.”
Young responded that chaplain issues are grievable just like any
other prison condition. The Court finds this answer responsive.
III.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Twaddell’s Responses to
Interrogatories (d/e 46)

A. Interrogatory 2: “The plaintiff ask of the defendant
W.Twaddell; why the referenced documents exhibited #One through
seven weren’t produced upon the filing of request for documents.”
7

The Court does not understand Plaintiff’s objection or this
interrogatory. If Plaintiff already has the requested documents, there is
nothing to compel.
B. Interrogatory 3: “Identify any and all persons who advised and
counseled defendant W. Twaddell concerning identifying the plaintiff as
“Messianic” and accommodating his dietary tenets of Kosher meals;”
Twaddell answered “none,” which Plaintiff asserts contradicts
documentary evidence. Twaddell’s answer is still responsive, even if the
answer is contradictory. Plaintiff may point out this contradiction at the
summary judgment stage.
C. Interrogatory 4: “Identify the document exhibited number nine,
clearly stamped received by the chaplain’s office and returned. . . . how is
it that the defendant found reason or precedence to return the exhibited
document numbered # nine, but refused to return the case law (Koger v.
Bryan)?”
Twaddell asserts that he is not familiar with the documents
identified and that he was unaware he needed to return the case law to
Plaintiff. The Court finds this answer responsive.
D. Interrogatory 5: “Identify the official and process in which the
defendant Twaddell obtained personal records of the plaintiff’s visiting
list outside the scope of the Chaplain’s office?”

8

Twaddell answered that the visitor list is not sensitive information
and can be accessed by IDOC employees. This answer is responsive,
though Plaintiff may dispute its truth.
E. Interrogatory 6: “Identify any and all documents, persons, etc.,
that provoked the defendant Twaddell to state in his Memorandum . . .
that ‘Mr. Vacca has yet to meet Offender Howard in person or speak
with him face to face and yet demands access to this Level 2 facility . . . I
find this suspicious and unusual . . . .’”
The Court agrees with Twaddell that Twaddell’s memo speaks for
itself. Plaintiff’s disagreement with Twaddell’s position is not grounds
for compelling a different answer.
F. Interrogatory 7: “Identify any and all related documents to
exhibit numbered #ten, identifying specifically what authority, law,
administrative code, reason, etc; on why the defendant Twaddell refused
to accommodate the plaintiff’s dietary request? Particularly how it is
that the . . . document (#ten) states that the defendant Twaddell will be
identifying the plaintiff as ‘Messianic’ and accommodating his dietary
request but demonstrated and denied the total opposite as of date?”
This interrogatory is an argument, not a request. The document
referred to speaks for itself. The time for arguing inferences from the
evidence is at summary judgment or trial.

9

G. Interrogatory 8: “Identify any and all documents related to any
complaint, grievance, criticism, censure, reprimand or rebuke directed
toward defendant Twaddell concerning his tenure as chaplain at the
Western Illinois Correctional Center?”
For the reasons set forth above, this request is overly broad, unduly
burdensome, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to
relevant, admissible evidence.
H. Interrogatory 9: “Identify any and all documents related to the
particular doctrine the defendant Twaddell had been ordained, taught
and teaches on a regular at the W.I.C.C; for instance; if the defendant
Twaddell believes children are born innocent, contrary to believing
everyone is born into sin from Adam?
Twaddell objects that this question is irrelevant. However,
Twaddell’s religion might be relevant to Twaddell’s motivation and state
of mind. Twaddell will be directed to reveal his religion and the religious
classes or groups he leads or participates in at the prison.
IV.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel admissions (d/e 49)
The Court has reviewed Defendant Twaddell’s responses to the

requests to admit and finds those responses to be sufficient. Plaintiff
clearly disagrees with the truth of those responses, but the Court does
not determine the truth of the admissions at this stage. If Plaintiff has
10

evidence or argument suggesting that Twaddell’s responses are untrue, he
may present that evidence and argument at the summary judgment
stage.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1)

Plaintiff’s motions to compel are denied (d/e’s 33, 40, 46, 49)

EXCEPT FOR the following:
a) Defendants are directed to provide Plaintiff with a list
showing, for the years 2009-2011, the expenditure of funds by Western
Illinois Correctional Center or the Chaplain’s Office at Western to assist
inmates in the practice of their various religions (for example, amounts
to pay religious leaders, conduct religious classes, provide religious texts
and materials, and provide for religious diets, feasts, celebrations, and
the like). The list shall show the amount expended, the purpose of the
expenditure, and the name of the religion or religions for which the
expenditure was made. If no such expenditures were made, or compiling
that list is overly burdensome, Defendants shall file an affidavit to that
effect.

11

b) Defendant Twaddell is directed to disclose the name of his
religion to Plaintiff and the name of the religious classes or groups
Twaddell leads or participates in at Western Illinois Correctional Center.
2)

Defendants shall provide to Plaintiff the information directed

in paragraph (1) above by December 5, 2011.
3)

Plaintiff has filed a “Motion Demonstrating Defendants

Adverse Actions and Retaliation Claims”. The motion is denied (d/e 57)
to the extent Plaintiff seeks to add new claims to this case or asks for an
order prohibiting alleged retaliation. Discovery in this case closes at the
end of this month. Adding new claims or requests for relief now would
require that discovery be reopened, unduly delaying the case and
prejudicing the existing defendants.
ENTERED: November 18, 2011
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12