Mitchell v. U.S.P.-Marion, IL et al

Filing 272

ORDER denying 216 Motion For Order Directing Respondent to Stop Delaying Mail; finding as moot 220 Motion to Strike; denying 241 Motion to Extend REcord and Return Photocopies; denying 251 Second Motion to Extend Record; granting in part and denying in part 252 Motion to Copy; granting 265 Motion to Copy. The Clerk is DIRECTED to provide Petitioner with a copy of the transcript from the April 1, 2013 evidentiary hearing as well as a copy of the docket sheet. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on 7/29/2013. (anj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
D. WALLACE MITCHELL,
Petitioner,
vs.
CHARLES A. DANIELS,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 06-cv-624-DRH-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court are several miscellaneous motions filed by Petitioner. The Court
rules as follows:
A.

Motion for Order Directing Respondent to Stop Delaying and Withholding Mail
Petitioner has filed a Motion for an Order Directing Respondent to Stop Delyaing and

Withholding Mail (Doc. 216). Specifically, Petitioner indicates that Petitioner is not receiving mail in
a timely fashion and that the BOP has been stamping his mail with a forged postal stamp. This
argument regarding the postal stamp is also the subject of a motion for sanctions filed by Petitioner
(Doc. 232, 234) which this Court has denied. The Court does not find any evidence in the record
suggesting that Respondent has forged a postal stamp and is in any way interfering with Petitioner’s
mail. Further, Respondent has offered evidence on numerous occasions that BOP staff has tried to
provide Petitioner with filings and documents in this case, but that Petitioner refuses to sign for the
documents (Doc. 203, 230). The Court also notes that it has previously found Petitioner’s allegations
regarding his access to mail disingenuous and Petitioner has indicated in other proceedings that he has
received his mail (Doc. 199). Accordingly, the Court finds no evidence to support Petitioner’s

arguments and thus the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion (Doc. 216).
B.

Opposition to Notice of Compliance with Court Order and Motion to Strike
Petitioner has also filed a motion to strike (Doc. 220), claiming that Respondent has

failed to provide Petitioner with a notice of compliance which Respondent served upon this Court
(Doc. 203) indicating that Respondent had performed an inventory of Petitioner’s R&D property and
that Petitioner had been provided with a copy of Thompson v. Veach . Petitioner argues that he
never received a copy of the opinion and that as the videotaping was conducted ex parte, Petitioner has
no way of knowing what property was taped. The Court notes that this matter is the subject of a
motion for sanctions filed by Petitioner which the Court denied. The Court further notes that it has
viewed the DVD of the inventory and also directed that Petitioner be provided with a copy of the
DVD (Doc. 222). Thus, Petitioner has now had the opportunity to view the DVD and the Court
finds that Petitioner was provided a copy of Thompson as noted by the Court previously. As the Court
has previously dealt with this topic, it FINDS AS MOOT Petitioner’s motion to strike.
C.

Motion to Extend Record and to Return Photocopies
Petitioner has also filed a motion to extend the record and to return photocopies of

exhibits (Doc. 241). Petitioner notes that there were numerous documents that he wanted to present
to the Court at the hearing but he did not have access to his legal materials. However, the Court notes
that Petitioner did not ask to present any of these exhibits at the hearing, even though he could have
done so. Thus, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to expand the record now. As to the
photocopies, Petitioner indicates that he gave Respondent his exhibits for photocopying and they
were never returned. It is not clear to the Court when Petitioner allegedly gave his exhibits to
Respondent for photocopying. He also continues to argue that Respondent is denying him access to
his legal materials. The Court has dealt with the issue of Petitioner’s access to his legal materials
Page 2 of 4

extensively and has determined that Respondent, since Petitioner’s arrival at Florence, has been
complying with the Court’s orders to provide Petitioner with access to his legal materials. There is
also no evidence that Respondent has in his possession exhibits that Petitioner intended to present to
the Court. Thus, the Court also DENIES this motion to the extent he is seeking the return of
photocopy exhibits that were in his legal materials.
D.

Second Motion to Extend Record
Petitioner has filed a Second Motion to Extend Record (Doc. 251) asking the Court to

hold another evidentiary hearing so that he may recall one of his witnesses, June Bencebi, to the stand.
Petitioner indicates that he has recently received good time sheets that were prepared by Bencebi and
he wishes to recall her so that he can question her about the documents. The Court DENIES
Petitioner’s motion to extend record (Doc. 251). Petitioner was given an opportunity at the hearing
to question Bencebi and the Court sees no further reason to recall her to the stand. Further, the
evidentiary hearing is over and the Court has all it needs before it to issue its ruling. Thus, no further
testimony, including further testimony from Bencebi, is needed.
E.

Motion for Copy of Transcripts
Here, Petitioner asks for a copy of the transcripts from both the Court’s December 13,

2013 motion hearing and the evidentiary hearing held on April 1, 2013 (Doc. 252). As to the
evidentiary hearing held on April 1, 2013, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion and DIRECTS
the Clerk to forward Petitioner a copy of the transcript from the April 1, 2013 evidentiary hearing so
that Petitioner may adequate review the record and respond to the Report and Recommendation.
However, as to the December 13, 2013 motion hearing, a transcript was not made for that hearing and
thus the Court DENIES Petitioner’s request.

Page 3 of 4

F.

Motion for Court to Provide Docket Sheet
Petitioner has also filed a motion for the Court to Provide Pages of Docket Sheet

(Doc. 265). Petitioner requests a copy of the docket sheet or copies of the most recent docket entries
as Petitioner claims that orders from this Court mention motions filed by Respondent that Petitioner
has no knowledge of. The Court notes that the several most recent filings in this case have been by
Petitioner himself. However, the Court will DIRECT the Clerk’s office to forward Petitioner a copy
of the docket sheet. Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion only to the extent that Petitioner
asks for a copy of the docket sheet.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 29, 2013.
/s/ Stephen C. Williams
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 4 of 4