Mitts v. Martin et al
Filing
107
ORDER FINDING MOOT IN PART, GRANTING IN PART, AND DENYING IN PART 73 Motion to Compel; and DENYING 75 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 12/14/2016. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOECEPHUS MITTS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. PHIL MARTIN, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:15-cv-811-NJR-DGW
ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court is the Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for
Appointment of Counsel filed by Plaintiff, Joecephus Mitts (Docs. 73 and 75). For the reasons set
forth below, the Motion to Compel is FOUND AS MOOT IN PART, GRANTED IN PART,
AND DENIED IN PART, and the Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.
MOTION TO COMPEL (Doc. 73)
In this motion, Plaintiff complains about discovery responses he received in response to
requests to produce and interrogatories that were propounded on both the Wexford Defendants
(Dr. Hector Garcia and John Coe) and the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”)
Defendants (Dr. Phil Martin, Stephen Duncan, Randall Baylor, Bradley Rue, Thomas Simmons,
and C/O Zwilling). Insofar as Plaintiff’s motion is directed at the Wexford Defendants, the Court
finds that it is MOOT as both Defendant Garcia and Defendant Coe were dismissed from this
action on September 22, 2016 (see Doc. 102). The Court, however, shall consider the motion
insofar as it is directed at the IDOC defendants.
Although somewhat unclear, the Court gleans that Plaintiff finds the IDOC Defendants’
Page 1 of 5
responses to his written discovery requests insufficient. As it is unclear whether Plaintiff is
complaining about Defendants’ responses in their entirety or complaining about their responses to
discrete requests, the Court, out of an abundance of caution, reviews each of Plaintiff’s requests,
and Defendants’ response thereto, as set forth below:
1. Request No. 1: Electronically store information and tangible things. Or entering onto
land. For inspection and other purposes. From May 14, 2014 between 2:30 p.m. to 3:15
p.m. at Lawrence health care [sic].
Response: These Defendants object to this Request as it is confusing. If Plaintiff is
requesting a videotape taken at Lawrence Healthcare in accordance with Rule 26(b)(1)
it is also irrelevant to the allegations contained in the complaint [and] is not
proportional to the needs of this case.
Ruling: The Court finds that this request is confusing and, as such, finds that
Defendant’s objection based on confusion appropriate. Plaintiff’s request to compel
any further response to this request is DENIED.
2. Request No. 2: Video surveillance of Lawrence Healthcare back door dated May 14,
2014 between 2:30 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. [sic].
Response: These Defendants object to this Request. In accordance with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) the information requested is not relevant or proportional to
the needs of the case.
Ruling: Although this objection was appropriate prior to the filing of Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint, said request could be relevant and proportional to the needs of
the case as Plaintiff is proceeding on an excessive force and failure to protect claim
related to an alleged assault that took place on May 14, 2014 near the backdoor of the
Page 2 of 5
healthcare unit. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as to this request is
GRANTED. Defendants are ORDERED to supplement their response (or objection)
to this request for production by December 28, 2016.
3. Request No. 3: State the duties of defendants Bayor, Warden Duncan, insofar as they
pertain to providing in particular, and other high-level prison officials who are
designated to decide disciplinary duty to conduct at least a minimal investigation any
alleged staff assault [sic].
Response: These Defendants object to Plaintiff’s Request. It is not clear what Plaintiff
is requesting.
Ruling: The Court finds that this request is confusing and, as such, finds that
Defendant’s objection based on confusion appropriate. Plaintiff’s request to compel
any further response to this request is DENIED.
4. Request No. 4: Institution rules pertaining to staff assaulted along with staff assaulted
identification cards. If those duties are set forth in any job description or other
document produce the document [sic].
Response: These Defendants object to Plaintiff’s Request. It is not clear what Plaintiff
is requesting.
Ruling: The Court finds that this request is confusing and, as such, finds that
Defendant’s objection based on confusion appropriate. Plaintiff’s request to compel
any further response to this request is DENIED.
5. Request No. 5: State the names, titles and duties of all Defendants who have
responsibility for ensuring that inmates requests for medical attention are responded to.
If those duties are set forth in any job description or other document, produce the
Page 3 of 5
document.
Response: These Defendants object to this request. The request is overly broad and not
limited in time or scope.
Ruling: Although Plaintiff did not limit his request in time and scope, the Court finds
this request to be relevant to the claims at issue and, as Plaintiff is proceeding pro se,
gives some leniency to Plaintiff and his failure to properly limit his request in time and
scope. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as to this request is GRANTED.
Defendants are ORDERED to supplement their response to this request by December
28, 2016, construing Plaintiff’s request as limited to the relevant scope and time period
(which Defendants may limit as they find appropriate; provided, however, they
indicate in their supplemental response what they deem the relevant scope and time
period to be).
6. Request No. 6: State the names titles and duties of all staff member at Lawrence. Who
have responsibility for responding to, investigating or deciding inmate grievances. If
those duties are set forth in any job description policy directive or other documents
produce the document [sic].
Response: These Defendants object to this request. The request is overly broad and is
not limited in time or scope.
Ruling: The Court agrees with Defendants that this request is overly broad.
Accordingly, the Court finds Defendants’ objection appropriate. Plaintiff’s request to
compel any further response to this request is DENIED.
The Court notes that discovery in this matter has closed; however, discovery will be
reopened for the limited purpose of having Defendants supplement their response to requests to
Page 4 of 5
produce numbers two and five.
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOCS. 73 AND 75)
In conjunction with his motion to compel, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of
counsel (Doc. 73).1 This Court previously denied Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel
finding that he had not shown sufficient efforts to recruit counsel and he appeared competent to
litigate this matter on his own based, in part, on the Court’s observation of Plaintiff at the hearing
on his motion for preliminary injunction. In particular, the undersigned found that Plaintiff was
able to communicate effectively with the Court and opposing counsel. In his motion now before
the Court, Plaintiff again fails to mention or describe his attempts to secure counsel on his own.
As such, Plaintiff has failed to meet his threshold burden. In any event, the Court again finds that
counsel is not warranted at this time. Plaintiff’s filings in this matter demonstrate his ability to
read, write, and understand the English language and, moreover, communicate with the Court by
making necessary filings, and engage in the discovery process. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to
provide the Court with a substantial reason to reconsider its previous ruling. For these reasons,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Docs. 73 and 75) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 14, 2016
DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge
1
For clarity, the Court made a separate docket entry for Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of
counsel that was combined with his motion to compel at Document 75. As such, the Court refers to
both Docket Entry 73 and 75 when referencing Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel.
Page 5 of 5
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?