Jones v. Baldwin et al
Filing
56
ORDER & OPINION entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 11/21/2017. IT IS ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff's motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above. (d/e 34 .) 2) Defendants are directed to produce the information comp elled above to Plaintiff by January 31, 2017. 3) Defendants' motion for Summary judgment is denied (d/e 43 ). 4) Defendants may renew their summary judgment motion by February 16, 2018. 5) Plaintiff's motion for status is denied as moot. (d/e 54 .) SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER & OPINION. (JRK, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 21 November, 2017 10:33:02 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
KEDRON JONES JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN R. BALDWIN, IDOC
DIRECTOR, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
16-CV-3143
OPINION
JAMES E. SHADID, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, alleges that he was repeatedly
exposed to the raw sewage of other inmates during his incarceration
in the Western Illinois Correctional Center from June 10, 2015 to
May 17, 2017. This allegedly occurred whenever an inmate in the
adjoining cell would flush the toilet, causing the contents to travel
to the adjoining cell (“cross flushing”).
Discovery has closed, except for the resolution of Plaintiff’s
motion to compel. Also before the Court is Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment.
Page 1 of 10
After reviewing the record, the Court concludes that more
information is necessary to determine whether a disputed material
fact exists for trial. Plaintiff’s motion to compel seeks some relevant
information that should be produced before this case is ready for
dispositive motions.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s First
Request for Production of Documents (34)
1. Plaintiff’s Document Request 1: “All inmate grievances
dealing with conditions, sanitation, plumbing, toilets backing up,
cross flushing, from 2007 to 2017. To include counselors’
responses, grievance officers’ responses, the administrative review
board (ARB) responses and copies of any and all letters written to
Western Illinois Correctional Center’s Administration, the
administration of IDOC at Springfield, the director’s office from
inmate/offenders, to include the administration’s responses thereto,
in regards to the above listed documents.” 1
Defendants object as “compound, overly broad, and unduly
burdensome.” (d/e 36-1, p. 1.) Defendants also maintain that they
“would need to examine every grievance ever filed by every inmate
in the IDOC” in order to respond. Id.
Whether other inmates complained about the cross-flushing
problem is relevant to the extent of the problem and Defendants’
1
Grammar and spelling errors have been corrected in reproducing Plaintiff’s document requests.
Page 2 of 10
knowledge of the problem. Defendants admit that sometimes crossflushing does occur because of poor plumbing design, but
Defendants maintain that Plaintiff’s description of the frequency
and extent of the problem is exaggerated. Evidence of complaints
by other inmates is arguably relevant to rebut that argument and
show that the problem is as bad as Plaintiff claims.
Defendants do not explain why they have to review every
inmate grievance ever filed to find inmate grievances about crossflushing at Western. Defendants should be able to determine the
inmates who lived on Plaintiff’s housing unit while Plaintiff lived on
that unit, and then review those inmates’ master files for grievances
about the cross-flushing. In any event, Defendants bear the burden
of demonstrating that doing this would be too burdensome, and
they have not done so.
Plaintiff’s Document Request 1 is granted as follows:
Defendants are directed to produce to Plaintiff grievances
about cross-flushing filed by inmates who lived on Plaintiff’s
Page 3 of 10
housing unit(s) from June 10, 2014 2 to May 17, 2017, along
with all the responses to those grievances.
2. Plaintiff’s Document Request 2: “All maintenance logs or
copies thereof to include work orders, service notes, sanitation
reports, results of any IDOC maintenance inspection reports,
results of any and all city or state building code and/or building
inspections.”
Defendants make the same objections as to request 1 and also
assert that IDOC policies or directives are irrelevant. Defendants
further represent that no such documents exist.
At least three work orders do exist because, according to
Defendants’ summary judgment motion, the Chief Engineer
responded to three work orders for cells occupied by Plaintiff.
(Robinson Aff. ¶ 5, d/e 44-2.) Defendants do not say what kind of
inquiry they made to determine whether other work orders,
inspections, or reports on the cross-flushing problem exist. Like
other inmate grievances, this evidence is arguably relevant to show
Defendants’ knowledge of the problem and the extent of the
problem.
2
Plaintiff arrived at Western Illinois Correctional Center on June 10, 2015. Reaching back one year before
Plaintiff’s arrival at Western should capture evidence of an ongoing problem and is appropriately limited to avoid
undue burden.
Page 4 of 10
Plaintiff’s Document Request 2 is granted as follows:
Defendants are directed to produce all work orders, reports,
inspections, and maintenance logs regarding the cross-flushing
problem at Western Illinois Correctional Center from June 10,
2014 to May 17, 2017 in the housing unit(s) where Plaintiff
resided at Western Illinois Correctional Center. If no such
documents exist, Defendants are directed to produce the
affidavit of someone with personal knowledge to explain how
those records are kept and catalogued, and what search efforts
were conducted to determine no such documents exist.
Plaintiff’s Document Request 3: “Copies of and results of
any and all inspections of the plumbing systems of each unit
at Western Illinois Correctional Center, copies of any and all
building code violations, plumbing code violations and reports
thereof, copies of all notes, letters, reports, e-mails pertaining to
plumbing problems to or from maintenance engineer' s office,
Western Illinois Correctional Center administrators, IDOC
Directors, any and all maintenance departments of IDOC facilities,
or the State of Illinois to include the Health Dept., building
inspectors office, water dept., from 2007 through 2017.”
The Court’s granting of Plaintiff’s request 2 already orders the
production of some of this information. Code violations and
communications regarding the cross-flushing problem may also be
Page 5 of 10
relevant to show the extent of the problem and Defendants’
knowledge of the problem. Defendants’ stock objections do not
address the possible relevance of this information or explain why
responding to the request would be burdensome.
Plaintiff’s Document Request 3 is granted as follows:
Defendants are directed to produce all notices of code
violations regarding or relating to the cross flushing problem at
Western Illinois Correctional Center from June 10, 2014 to May
17, 2017. Defendants are directed to produce all
communications regarding or relating to the cross flushing
problem at Western Illinois Correctional Center from June 10,
2014 to May 17, 2017. If no such documents exist, Defendants
are directed to produce the affidavit of someone with personal
knowledge to explain how those records are kept and
catalogued, and what search efforts were conducted to
determine no such documents exist.
Plaintiff’s Document Request 4: “Any and all documents
from Western Illinois Correctional Center dealing with sanitation
problems, conditions, plumbing problems, toilet problems and
repairs to and from any entity of the State of Illinois, the Federal
Page 6 of 10
Government, or the John Howard Association from 2000 through
2017.”
The Court’s granting of Plaintiff’s requests 2 and 3 already
cover documents that may have provided notice to Defendants of
cross-flushing problems. Plaintiff may contact the John Howard
Association to obtain reports from the John Howard Association.
Plaintiff’s Request 4 is denied.
Plaintiff’s Request 5: “A list of all civil cases filed and
litigated in both State and Federal Court dealing with conditions,
sanitation, plumbing, toilets, in any combination thereof [ sic] from
2000 through 2017.”
This request is overly broad, seeks irrelevant information, and
essentially asks Defendants to research prison plumbing
nationwide. Other civil lawsuits involving the plumbing in other
prisons would not be relevant to Plaintiff’s claim about crossflushing in the Western Illinois Correctional Center. Even other
cases about cross-flushing in the Western Illinois Correctional
Center would not have much additional relevance beyond the
grievances and other information already being compelled.
Plaintiff’s Request 5 is denied.
Page 7 of 10
Plaintiff’s request 6: “A list of the names of all maintenance
staff to include engineers, plumbers or to include civilian and
offender/ inmate employees, with their contact information for
deposition or subpoena by the Court’s permission, from 2007
through 2017.”
Defendants have already divulged the name of the Chief
Engineer who investigated Plaintiff’s complaints and who has
personal knowledge of how the plumbing is designed. The rest of
Plaintiff’s request is overbroad because the request covers anyone
working in maintenance in any capacity at Western for the past ten
years. Plaintiff’s request 6 is denied.
Plaintiff’s request 7: “Any and all reports, requests,
proposals and or bids to repair the plumbing systems or toilets at
Western Illinois Correctional Ctr., from 2000 through 2017.”
Defendants object as too broad, too burdensome, and
irrelevant. However, Plaintiff says that he was told that fixing the
cross-flush problem would be too expensive. Evidence of the cost to
fix the problem is relevant to the deliberate indifference inquiry. If
the fix is relatively inexpensive, that could weigh in Plaintiff’s favor,
and if the fix is prohibitively expensive, that could weigh in
Defendants’ favor. Defendants assert that no such documents
Page 8 of 10
exist, but they do not state what efforts were made to determine
this.
Plaintiff’s request 7 is granted as follows: Defendants
shall produce all proposals, requests, or bids to correct the
cross-flushing problem at the Western Illinois Correctional
Center. If no such documents exist, Defendants are directed to
produce the affidavit of someone with personal knowledge to
explain how those records are kept and catalogued, and what
search efforts were conducted to determine that no such
documents exist.
Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion (d/e 43)
The information compelled above is relevant to determining
the extent of the problem, Defendants’ knowledge of the problem,
and Defendants’ ability to fix the problem. The information is
therefore arguably relevant to determining whether summary
judgment should be granted, and Plaintiff should have an
opportunity to include this information in opposing summary
judgment. Further, Defendants do not attach any of their own
affidavits to their motion for summary judgment, which makes
Page 9 of 10
granting summary judgment in their favor inappropriate.
Defendants’ summary judgment motion will be denied with leave to
renew.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1)
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part and denied
in part as set forth above. (d/e 34.)
2)
Defendants are directed to produce the information
compelled above to Plaintiff by January 31, 2017.
3)
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied
(d/e 43).
4)
Defendants may renew their summary judgment motion
by February 16, 2018.
5)
Plaintiff’s motion for status is denied as moot. (d/e 54.)
ENTERED: 11/21/2017
FOR THE COURT:
s/James E. Shadid
JAMES E. SHADID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 10 of 10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?