Dooley v. Kibby et al

Filing 74

OPINION: (1) Plaintiff's motions to compel are granted in part and denied in part (d/e's [38-45], 47 ). (2) Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's reply to Defendants' response is granted 60 . No reply to the response is permitted under the local rules. (3) Plaintiff's motion to extend his deadline for responding to Defendants' discovery requests is granted 67 . Plaintiff's response deadline is extended to August 30, 2013. (4) Plaintiff's mo tion to preserve video evidence of a search of his cell is denied 63 because no such video evidence exists according to Defendants 72 . (5) The summary judgment motion deadline is extended to September 20, 2013. (6) The final pretrial and trial dates are vacated, to be rescheduled after a ruling on summary judgment motions. SEE WRITTEN ORDER. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 8/1/2013. (ME, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 01 August, 2013 03:21:02 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
CHARLES DOOLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALFREDA KIBBY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

12-CV-3006

OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently detained in the Rushville
Treatment and Detention Center, proceeds on claims of excessive force,
inhumane conditions of confinement, and punishment without procedural
due process. Discovery closed on April 1, 2013, but several motions to
compel discovery are pending.
Plaintiff's Motions to Compel Answers to Interrogatories
Plaintiff asks Defendants to state whether they have "any education,
training, and/or skills that would help you to better aide [sic] in the safety
and security of the Therapeutic environment at the Rushville . . . facility."
Page 1 of 8

The Court agrees with Defendants that this question is too vague and
broad. Further, Defendants have responded that they receive weekly
tactical team training and training from the IDOC.
Plaintiff also asks some of the Defendants whether they were
"working under direct orders from the Shift Commanders Office" on July 9,
2011. Defendants responded that they were called by the Shift
Commander to extract Plaintiff from his cell on that day and that the
Security Director authorizes the emergency response team. This answer
is responsive.
Plaintiff asks whether Defendants have been accused of physically
harming anyone. The Court agrees that this question is too vague and
broad. Further, evidence of other excessive force incidents would not be
admissible to prove that Defendants used excessive force in this case. Fed.
R. Evid. 404(a)(1)("Evidence of a person's character or character trait is
not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in
accordance with the character or trait."). However, substantiated
allegations of excessive force in the workplace may be relevant to show a
Page 2 of 8

material fact such as motive, intent, or lack of accident. See Fed. R.
Evid. 404(b)(2); see Okai v. Verfuth, 275 F.3d 606, 610 (7th Cir.
2001)(setting forth test for whether prior bad acts are admissible).
Defendants will be directed to inform Plaintiff whether Defendants
have been found to have used excessive force on a resident of the
Rushville Treatment and Detention Center.
Plaintiff next asks Defendants whether they have been charged
with any crime anywhere in the United States. The Court agrees
with Defendants that this question is too broad and seeks irrelevant
information. However, convictions punishable by more than one
year of imprisonment, or convictions for crimes of dishonesty, may be
admissible to attack credibility. Fed. R. Evid. 609. Convictions for
assault might also be relevant. Defendants will be directed to
disclose such convictions, if any.
Also, Plaintiff asks if Defendants have been named as
Defendants in any other civil cases. The Court agrees with
Defendants that this question is too broad and seeks irrelevant
information.
In addition to the above questions, Plaintiff asks Defendant
Page 3 of 8

Haage if Haage has "ever been accused of being under the influence of
alcohol at work?" The Court agrees with Defendants that this is
irrelevant to Plaintiff's claims.
Next, Plaintiff challenges Defendant Maloney's statement that
she was not working on July 9, 2011. Defendant Maloney's answer
is responsive, even if Plaintiff believes the answer is false. If Plaintiff
has evidence that Defendant Maloney was at work on this day, then
Plaintiff may submit the evidence at the summary judgment stage.
Plaintiff asks additional questions to Defendant McAdory, but
the Court finds Defendant McAdory's answers responsive. Plaintiff's
questions about other allegations of misuse of authority against
McAdory is too vague and broad. McAdory will already be providing
information about convictions and substantiated excessive force
incidents.
Plaintiff's Revised Document Request
The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff's request for all
program directives is too broad. The Court will order the production
of program directives relevant to Plaintiff's claims. Similarly,
Plaintiff's requests for all disciplinary reports on file with Central
Page 4 of 8

Management Services regarding Defendants is too broad.
Defendants are already producing information on prior findings of
excessive force and convictions for assault.
Plaintiff seeks "the complete contract for AFSCME for the
employment" of Defendants, but that request is irrelevant to
Plaintiff's claims.
Plaintiff seeks video footage, but Plaintiff has already been given
an opportunity to view the video footage that does exist.
Some of Plaintiff's document requests do seek relevant
information, though the requests may be phrased too broadly. For
example, Defendants' resumes may provide relevant background
information. The training for security therapy aides and restraint
protocol may be relevant to Plaintiff's claims of excessive force.
Similarly, the procedures for confining a resident on "cool down" or
"close status" may be relevant to Plaintiff's condition of confinement
claim or procedural due process claim. Lastly, Plaintiff's entire
"master file" is not relevant, but documents in the file relating or
referring to the events at issue in this case would be relevant.
Accordingly, this information will be compelled. If disclosure
Page 5 of 8

presents security concerns, Defendants may redact the necessary
information and file a motion to redact, attaching under seal an
unredacted version of the document.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff's motions to compel are granted in part and denied in
part (d/e's 38-45, 47). By August 30, 2013, each Defendant is
directed to:
a. inform Plaintiff if the Defendant under consideration has
been found to have used excessive force on a resident of
Rushville Treatment and Detention Center. If yes, the
Defendant under consideration shall state the date of the
excessive force and the findings.
b. inform Plaintiff if the Defendant under consideration has
been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one
year of prison; has been convicted of a crime which
required proving a dishonest act or statement; or has been
convicted of the crime of assault. If yes, the Defendant
shall state the date of the conviction and the offense.
c. Provide Plaintiff with a resume, if already created;
Page 6 of 8

d. Provide Plaintiff with documents which set forth the
training provided to security therapist aides regarding cell
extractions, use of force on residents, placing a resident on
cool down, and placing a resident in close status;
e. Provide Plaintiff with procedures, protocols, and directives
regarding cell extractions, use of force on residents,
placing a resident on cool down, and placing a resident in
close status; and,
f. Provide Plaintiff with documents in his master file which
relate or refer to the incidents at issue in this case;
2) Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's reply to Defendants'
response is granted (d/e 60). No reply to the response is
permitted under the local rules.
3) Plaintiff's motion to extend his deadline for responding to
Defendants' discovery requests is granted (d/e 67). Plaintiff's
response deadline is extended to August 30, 2013.
4) Plaintiff's motion to preserve video evidence of a search of his
cell is denied (d/e 63) because no such video evidence exists
according to Defendants (d/e 72).
Page 7 of 8

5) The summary judgment motion deadline is extended to
September 20, 2013.
6) The final pretrial and trial dates are vacated, to be rescheduled
after a ruling on summary judgment motions.

ENTERED: 8/1/2013
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 8 of 8