Jackson v. Willis et al

Filing 131

OPINION entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 1/10/2014. For the reasons stated in the opinion, Motion 102 is granted in part and denied in part, motion 100 is denied as moot and motions 126 , 128 are denied as moot. See written opinion. Copy mailed to the Plaintiff at Nathaniel Jackson,B 15383, Danville Correctional Center, Inmate Mail/Parcels, 3820 E Main St, Danville, IL 61834. (JMW, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 10 January, 2014 12:51:09 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
NATHANIEL JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
LT. WILLIS and EDDIE J. PAYNE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

12-CV-3023

OPINION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and incarcerated in Dixon
Correctional Center, pursues claims for excessive force arising from
incidents which occurred at the Logan Correctional Center on
August 4, 2011. Plaintiff also pursues a claim that Defendants put
him at a substantial risk of serious harm by refusing Plaintiff's
request to be placed in a prison where he has no declared enemies.
The case is in the process of discovery.
Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel (d/e 102) regarding the
responses he received to his interrogatories and requests for
production of documents. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's
discovery requests and Defendants' responses.

Page 1 of 5 

Some of the information Plaintiff seeks is relevant and
discoverable, such as the names of potential witnesses to the
alleged excessive force, the video recordings (if any) of the alleged
excessive force, Defendants' work assignments during the relevant
time, and whether Defendants were disciplined for any of the
alleged incidents on August 4, 2011. Defendants' objections thereto
are insufficient boilerplate.
The Court concludes that the following interrogatories by
Plaintiff seek relevant and discoverable information: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37,
and 39. To the extent Plaintiff asks for addresses of witnesses, only
work addresses shall be provided, if known. To the extent Plaintiff
does not specify a date or location in his interrogatories, Defendants
shall assume the date Plaintiff means is August 4, 2011, and the
location is where the alleged incidents occurred, the Logan
Correctional Center.
The rest of Plaintiff's interrogatories are irrelevant, duplicative,
confusing, argumentative, or objectionable for the reasons stated by
Defendants. For example, whether Defendants are white
supremacists or homosexual is not relevant. Whether Defendants
Page 2 of 5 

have ever been disciplined for anything throughout their entire
work careers is irrelevant, as is whether Defendants have friends at
other prisons. And, the location of surveillance cameras is not
discoverable for obvious security reasons.
Plaintiff also challenges the responses to his request for
production of documents. The Court agrees that Plaintiff's request
for his "complete prison record" is overbroad and irrelevant.
Plaintiff does not explain why his entire prison record would be
relevant to his claims. However, incident reports, investigations,
grievances, grievance responses, and other documents relating to or
referring to the alleged incidents on August 4, 2011, are relevant
and discoverable. Additionally, documents which identify potential
eyewitnesses are relevant, as are Plaintiff medical records, which
might corroborate Plaintiff's alleged injuries. Defendants may
redact sensitive information, or, if security concerns counsel
against disclosure, file a motion for an in camera inspection,
explaining in sufficient detail the security risks presented by
disclosure.

Page 3 of 5 

The Court concludes that following document requests by
Plaintiff seek relevant, discoverable information: 2, 3, 4, 4[sic],1 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Plaintiff's other document requests are denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1)

Plaintiff's motion to compel (d/e 102) is granted in part and

denied in part as set forth above.
2)

Defendants are directed to provide the compelled information

by February 28, 2014.
3)

Discovery remains closed, except for the information

compelled above.
4)

Dispositive motions are due April 14, 2014.

5)

Plaintiff's motion to compel the librarian to make copies of

Defendants' discovery responses is denied as moot (d/e 100). The
responses are already in the record.
6)

Plaintiff's motions for a ruling on his motions to compel are

1

 Plaintiff has two interrogatories, both numbered as "4."  Defendants shall respond to both. 

Page 4 of 5 

denied as moot (d/e's 126, 128).
ENTERED:

1/10/2014

FOR THE COURT:
s/Colin Stirling Bruce
COLIN STIRLING BRUCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 5 of 5