Birdo v. Prisoner Review Board et al

Filing 68

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 54 MOTION to Compel filed by Kevin A Birdo, DENYING 58 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Kevin A Birdo, DENYING 59 MOTION to Compel filed by Kevin A Birdo, DENYING 60 MOTION to Submit Second Set of Interrog atories filed by Kevin A Birdo, DENYING 64 MOTION to Strike 63 Response to Motion, 62 Response to Motion filed by Kevin A Birdo. Defendant to provide document for in camera inspection by September 27, 2016 as indicated in Order. Clerk of Court to complete, docket, and mail three subpoenas submitted by Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 9/20/16. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
CHRISTOPHER MATHIS and SUSAN HILL,)
)
)
Defendants.
KEVIN A. BIRDO,

Case No. 3:15-cv-456-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court are various Motions filed by Plaintiff:
1.

The Motion to Compel Discovery filed by Plaintiff on June 8, 2016 (Doc. 54) is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff sought a “security reclassification and transfer user’s

manual” from the Illinois Department of Corrections through a request to produce directed at
Defendants (who are employees of the IDOC). In response, Defendants state that they requested
the document from the custodian and that they would supplement once the document is received.
However, they have now determined that disclosure would pose a threat to the safety and security
of the prison. Accordingly, they have refused to provide the document. It is unclear what the
relevance of the document is and how it relates to Plaintiff’s claims; and, Defendants do not
elaborate on the nature of the threat that it poses. Defendants are ORDERED to submit the
document for in camera inspection by September 27, 2016 and the Court will determine whether
the document, or any part thereof, should be disclosed to Plaintiff. In any future motion to
compel, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to attach and file the discovery requests that are relevant to the
motion.
2.

The Motion for Sanctions filed by Plaintiff on June 29, 2016 (Doc. 58) is DENIED. This
Page 1 of 3

motion is wholly without merit and requires no further comment.
3.

The Second Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff on June 29, 2016 (Doc. 59) is DENIED.

Filing multiple motions on the same topic adds nothing to this litigation.
4.

The Motion to Submit a Second Set of Interrogatories filed by Plaintiff on June 29, 2016

(Doc. 60) is DENIED. The Scheduling Order in this matter limits interrogatories to 15 and states
that the number may be increased for “good cause shown.” Plaintiff’s brief motion does not
indicate what good cause requires an additional 18 interrogatories (which are in addition to the 25
that Plaintiff already has propounded).
5.

The Motion to Strike Supplemental Response filed by Plaintiff on July 18, 2016 (Doc. 64)

is DENIED. This motion is wholly without merit and requires no further comment.
6.

Plaintiff has submitted three subpoenas for review prior to service. These subpoenas are

directed to the Illinois Department of Corrections, the Menard Correctional Center, and the
Lawrence Correctional Center. The subpoenas are identical in that they seek categories of
statistical information related to the level of violence at each of the two correctional centers. As
noted in this Court’s previous Order, Plaintiff has been permitted to proceed on a claim that he was
retaliated against for filing grievances when his discretionary transfer request was denied.
Plaintiff claims that this denial was an adverse action because Menard CC (where he was housed)
is much more violent than Lawrence CC (where he wanted to be transferred). The items
requested in the subpoena relate to that theory. However, as this Court previously indicated, the
third parties are not required to generate evidence or otherwise expend unreasonable resources
compiling such information. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this matter and “[t]he officers of the court shall
issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The

Page 2 of 3

Clerk of Court is therefore DIRECTED to forthwith complete the subpoenas, docket the
completed subpoenas, and mail them, via certified mail with return receipt, along with a copy of
this Order.

The subpoenas shall be mailed to the Director of the Illinois Department of

Corrections, and the wardens of Menard CC and Lawrence CC, respectively. Each of these
persons is not required to appear but shall respond to the subpoena within thirty (30) days of
service. The responses, including any objections, shall be served upon Plaintiff at his address:
Kevin A. Birdo B28737, Lawrence Correctional Center, 10930 Lawrence Road, Sumner, IL
62466.
DATED: September 21, 2016

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3