Beard v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 55

ORDER GRANTING 49 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff is ORDERED to answer Defendants interrogatories and requests for production of documents (Doc. 49-2) and mail his responses to Defendants no later than June 29, 2018. Beard is WARNED that failur e to comply with this Court order may result in a recommendation that his suit be dismissed. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a copy of Doc. 49-2 (relevant interrogatories and requests for production of documents) along with this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 6/4/2018. (jkb2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LIONEL BEARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASST MANAGER HUMPHRIES, FRED
FALMIER, and USA
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:16-cv-1209-JPG-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is a Motion to Compel filed by Defendants Falmier, Humphries
and USA (Doc. 49). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Compel is GRANTED.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Lionel Beard is an inmate who is currently incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Greenville, Illinois. Beard alleges that on August 11, 2015 he was
verbally and physically assaulted by UNICOR factory supervisor Fred Falmier while at the United
States Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois (Doc. 12-1). An assistant manager, Defendant Humphries,
was present during the incident but did not intervene or otherwise attempt to stop the assault (Doc.
12-1, pp. 3-4). When Beard filed a complaint, he was transferred to USP-Marion’s Special
Housing Unit (SHU), where he remained for at least five months while the matter was investigated
(Doc. 12-1, p. 4). Before he was ever interviewed, Plaintiff was transferred to FCI-Greenville
(Doc. 12-1, p. 4). Beard filed the pending action alleging negligence and/or deliberate indifference
of these federal officials under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346,
2671-80 (Doc. 12-1, p. 7).

Page 1 of 3

The Court conducted a threshold review of Beard’s Amended Complaint, and he was
allowed to proceed on the following claims:
Count 1 - Falmier exhibited deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff, in violation of
the Eighth Amendment and under Bivens, when he/she verbally and physically
assaulted Plaintiff on August 11, 2015.
Count 2 - Humphries exhibited deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff, in
violation of the Eighth Amendment and under Bivens, when he/she failed to
intervene and stop the assault or assist Plaintiff in filing a complaint on August 11,
2015.
Count 3 - The United States is liable under the FTCA for Falmier’s assault of
Plaintiff and Humphries’ failure to intervene and stop the assault on August 11,
2015.
(Doc. 15)
On May 1, 2018 Defendants filed the pending Motion to Compel alleging Beard had failed
to answer written discovery requests (Doc. 49, ¶1). Specifically, interrogatories and requests for
production of documents filed individually by Defendants Falmier and Humphries (Doc. 49-2).
ANALYSIS
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33(b), 34(b)(2) and 36(a)(4) require a party to answer or
object to interrogatories, requests for production of documents and requests for admissions within
thirty days. On February 12, 2018 Defendants sent their interrogatories and requests for production
of documents to Beard through the United States Mail. Assuming three days for delivery, Beard
was required to respond to the discovery requests by March 19, 2018. He failed to do so.
In his response, Beard argues that he has complied with the discovery order by filing his
initial disclosures in a timely manner (Doc. 52, p. 1). Nowhere in his response does Beard address
the interrogatories and requests for production of documents propounded by Defendants. Thus, it
appears to the Court that Beard does not understand the role of interrogatories and requests for
production of documents in the discovery process. The Court directs Mr. Beard’s attention to
Page 2 of 3

Section II (Discovery) of the Scheduling Order, which clearly states parties may submit up to 15
interrogatories, 15 requests for production of documents, and ten requests for admissions (Doc. 43,
p. 3). Because the discovery sent to Beard by Defendants was authorized by the scheduling and
discovery order, Beard was obligated to respond.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Compel is GRANTED. Beard is
ORDERED to answer Defendants’ interrogatories and requests for production of documents
(Doc. 49-2) and mail his responses to Defendants no later than June 29, 2018. Beard is WARNED
that failure to comply with this Court order may result in a recommendation that his suit be
dismissed. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a copy of Doc. 49-2 (relevant
interrogatories and requests for production of documents) along with this order.

SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 4, 2018

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3