Lynn v. Maddox et al

Filing 150

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 139 Motion for Reconsideration re 137 Order on Motion to Intervene, Order on Motion for Order, Order on Motion for Service, Order on Motion to Quash, Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Hearing; denying 145 Motion for Order; denying 145 Motion for Hearing; denying 146 Motion to Compel; denying 146 Motion for Hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 1/14/2014. Mailed to pro se party Patrick Lynn by regular mail. (df)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
PATRICK LYNN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LEONARD MADDOX,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 12-3104-MLB-KGG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court are the following motions followed by Plaintiff in the
above-captioned matter:
A.

Motion for Reconsideration of KDOC IMPPs Ruling
With Explanation of Relevance and Request for Orders
(Doc. 139);

B.

Motion for Orders Concerning Non-Party Witnesses
Contact Info. and Request for Telephone Hearing
Arguments (Doc. 145);

C.

Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff’s First Request
for Admissions and Request for Telephone Hearing
Arguments (Doc. 146).

Each motion will be discussed in turn.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, who currently represents himself pro se, is an inmate whose claims
arose while he was confined in a Kansas Department of Corrections (“KDOC”)

facility. He initially brought excessive force claims, with the assistance of counsel,
against two officers (Leonard Maddox and Anthony Hughes) employed at the El
Dorado, Kansas, correctional facility. (See generally Doc. 1.) The District Court
entered a Memorandum and Order granting, with prejudice, a motion to dismiss
filed by Hughes and denying, without prejudice, the motion to dismiss against
Maddox. (See Doc. 42.)
This Court recently entered an Order (Doc. 137) regarding a subpoena
Plaintiff served on non-party Ray Roberts, the Secretary of the Kansas Department
of Corrections, seeking various categories of documents (see Doc. 108, at 3-10).
The discussion contained in that Order is incorporated herein by reference.
DISCUSSION
A.

Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 139).
In its previous Order (Doc. 137), this Court held that Secretary Roberts,

recipient of the underlying subpoena, would not be required to produce the
numerous internal management policies (“IMPPs”) listed by Plaintiff. The Court
found that Plaintiff’s motion merely listed the IMPPs by number and contained no
discussion of what these policies entail and/or cover. As such, the Court was
unable to determine whether they are relevant to the limited issue of Maddox’s
qualified immunity, the sole issue remaining in this litigation.
2

Plaintiff has now provided the Court with an explanation of the topics
covered by two of these IMPPs (Nos. 12-111 and 12-116) as well as a discussion
of their relevance to the issue of Defendant Maddox’s qualified immunity. (See
Doc. 139, at 1-2.) Although this information should have been contained in
Plaintiff’s initial motion, the Court will consider it now. As such, the Court finds
that IMPP Nos. 12-111 and 12-116 are relevant and ORDERS non-party Secretary
Roberts to produce the same to Plaintiff within 30 days of the date of this Order.
The Court notes that it is not technically reconsidering its prior ruling, but rather
considering newly submitted necessary information that allows it to more fully
address Plaintiff’s underlying motion on its merits. The remainder of Plaintiff’s
motion is denied.
B.

Motion for Orders Concerning Non-Party Witnesses (Doc. 145).
In this motion, Plaintiff seeks an Order allowing him to make tape recorded

telephone interviews of certain “KDOC parties,” to obtain current addresses and
telephone numbers of former staff of the Leavenworth Correctional Facility
(“LCF”), to obtain certain log entries from LCF, and to have certain former LCF
officers examine certain photographs. As an initial matter, the procedure Plaintiff
has followed to obtain the requested information is improper and should not have
been raised for the first time as the subject of a motion to the Court. Further,
3

Plaintiff has failed to establish how information regarding LCF employees and
events that took place after the incident in question, are relevant to the Court’s
analysis of whether Defendant Maddox used excessive force on Plaintiff at the El
Dorado Correctional Facility on February 13, 2011. (Doc. 1, at 4.) Plaintiff’s
motion is, therefore, denied.
The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s motion contains protestations about the
veracity of Defendant Maddox’s responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions.
(Doc. 145, at 2.) Plaintiff has not, however, requested any relief from the Court in
this regard. Further, the Court does not invite Plaintiff to do so as a motion to the
Court is typically not the proper avenue to attack the veracity or credibility of a
party’s discovery responses.
C.

Motion to Compel (Doc. 146).
Finally, Plaintiff moves the Court “for Orders compelling the defendant to

provide full and complete answers to his First Requests for Admissions and
submits herewith his formal discovery request and defendant’s typically evasive
answers, some of which evidence perjury by defendant.” (Doc. 146.) Plaintiff’s
motion provides nothing other than a generalized dissatisfaction for Defendant’s
responses. In order to succeed on a motion to compel, the moving party must
establish how and why each particular response is improper. It is not the province
4

of the Court to review the discovery responses in their entirety and attempt to guess
as to why Plaintiff found them to be improper or evasive. Plaintiff’s motion is
denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration
of KDOC IMPP's [sic] Ruling With Explanation of Relevance and Request for
Orders” (Doc. 139) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as more fully set
forth herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Orders Concerning
Non-Party Witnesses Contact Info. and Request for Telephone Hearing
Arguments” (Doc. 145) and “Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's First
Request for Admissions and Request for Telephone Hearing Arguments” (Doc.
146) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 14th day of January, 2014.

S/ KENNETH G. GALE

Kenneth G. Gale
United States Magistrate Judge

5