Hannah v. Vincent et al

Filing 25

OPINION: Plaintiff's motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part (d/e 22 ). See written Opinion. Entered by Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore on 7/16/2012. (MJ, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 16 July, 2012 11:57:50 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, PEORIA DIVISION
DEMEL HANNAH,
Plaintiff,
v.
JULIA VINCENT,
STIRLING EDWARDS,
KELLY L. GRAHAM, and
LEONTA L. JACKSON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 11-cv-3432

OPINION
BYRON G. CUDMORE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in Pontiac Correctional Center and
proceeding pro se, pursues First Amendment claims based on alleged
retaliation against him for filing a grievance at Western Illinois Correctional
Center about the refusal to restore his good time. In particular, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant Julia Vincent wrote Plaintiff a disciplinary report for
“intimidation and threats” based on Plaintiff’s request in his grievance for
“a fair and complete evaluation by the committee, whereas I can attempt to
forge a counter attack against the members that refuse to grant
restoration.” (Complaint, Ex. 1). Plaintiff further alleges that Julia Vincent
Page 1 of 6

wrote the disciplinary report to retaliate against him because her husband
had been involved the denial of good time restoration. Julia Vincent was
also apparently the counselor who responded to Plaintiff’s grievance.
(Complaint, Ex. 1).
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of
documents. The first request at issue asks for “[a]ny training program that
informs staff members on how to deal with offenders when their spouse is
involved.” (d/e 22, ¶ 4). The next request is somewhat similar, seeking
documents addressing “[a]ny and all conflicts of interest Directives of
I.D.O.C.” (d/e 22, ¶ 6). Defendants object to the former on grounds of
relevance and to the latter on grounds of vagueness and overbreadth.
The Court agrees that these requests are too vague and too broad.
However, considered in the context of his claims, Plaintiff seems to be
seeking IDOC documents which govern the handling of grievances if those
handling the grievance are related to the person who is the subject of the
grievance. The administrative code sections which Defendants provided to
Plaintiff address some conflict of interest and partiality situations, but not
this particular situation. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code 504.820(b)(no person
“directly involved in subject matter of grievance” may serve as grievance

Page 2 of 6

officer); 20 Ill. Admin. Code 504.80(d)(person who writes disciplinary report
cannot serve on Adjustment Committee).
Violations of internal codes of conduct would not give rise to an
independent constitutional violation. See Thompson v. City of Chicago,
472 F.3d 444, 454 (7th Cir. 2006)(“T]his court has consistently held that ‘42
U.S.C. § 1983 protects plaintiffs from constitutional violations, not violations
of state laws or . . . departmental regulations and police practices.’”)
(quoted cite omitted). Thus, even if internal rules exist against ruling on a
grievance in this situation, that violation would not, by itself, support a
constitutional claim. However, such a violation might be relevant to show
retaliatory motive: a deliberate refusal to follow standard procedures for
processing grievances could tend to make less probable Defendants’
innocent explanations for their actions. The Court will accordingly grant
Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to these requests but will attempt to narrow
the requests to target relevant information.
Plaintiff’s request numbers six through eight appear too broad and
vague to salvage. Plaintiff seeks all training requirements and training
documents for Adjustment Committee Members, directives on “staff code
and conduct,” and documents regarding “job performance” for counselors.

Page 3 of 6

(d/e 22, p. 1). These terms are too ambiguous to give notice of exactly
what Plaintiff seeks and are so broad that they could potentially cover a
vast array of irrelevant documents.
However, viewing the requests in the context of the claims, Plaintiff
may be seeking organizational documents addressing the discipline of
inmates for statements in grievances. As with the conflict of interest
request discussed above, this information might arguably be relevant to
Defendants’ motive. The Court will attempt to narrow this request as well.
Plaintiff also seeks the written statement he submitted to the
Adjustment Committee. However, he does not dispute Defendants’
assertion that the statement was destroyed when the disciplinary ticket was
expunged. (d/e 24, p. 3). This request will accordingly be denied.
On a separate matter, Plaintiff has filed a motion to correspond with
another inmate for purposes of obtaining that inmate’s affidavit. Inmate
David Woods, currently incarcerated in Lawrence Correctional Center,
allegedly witnessed and overheard Plaintiff telling Defendant Jackson that
Plaintiff was being wrongfully held in segregation. Plaintiff’s request to the
Warden to correspond with this witness for 60 days has been denied, in
part because of a lack of verification. (d/e 23).

Page 4 of 6

Inmate Woods’ affidavit about an overheard conversation would not
be admissible to show the truth of the matter heard (i.e., that Plaintiff’s
segregation was in fact illegal), but might be admissible to show that
Jackson was on notice that Plaintiff was making that claim. This would not
be probative of whether Jackson knew or had reason to believe that
Plaintiff’s claims were actually true.
While inmate Woods’ affidavit seems unlikely to add much, if any,
probative evidence, the Court believes that a ruling on the admissibility and
relevance of that affidavit would be premature. Accordingly, the Court will
request the Warden at Plaintiff’s prison to indicate whether Plaintiff might
be allowed a one-time correspondence with inmate Woods for the purpose
of securing Woods’ affidavit or statement in connection with this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part
(d/e 22). By August 6, 2012, Defendants are directed to produce to Plaintiff
any documents instructing IDOC employees on 1) how grievances should
be handled if the person responding to the grievance is related to the
person who is the subject of the grievance; or 2) the disciplining of an

Page 5 of 6

inmate for statements made by the inmate in a grievance. Plaintiff’s motion
to compel and request for sanctions is otherwise denied.
2)

By August 6, 2012, the Court requests that the Warden of

Pontiac Correctional Center, Randy Pfister, inform the Court whether
Plaintiff may be granted a one-time opportunity to correspond with inmate
David Woods for the purpose of obtaining Woods’ affidavit or statement in
connection with this case. Upon information and belief, David Woods is
currently incarcerated in Lawrence Correctional Center, inmate number
R22681. Plaintiff’s correspondence to Woods would not be sealed and
would be subject to search and review by prison staff. The clerk is directed
to mail this order to Mr. Pfister and to highlight this paragraph for Mr.
Pfister.
ENTER:

July 16, 2012
_____s/ Byron G. Cudmore_________
BYRON G. CUDMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 6 of 6