Lynn v. Maddox et al

Filing 203

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 189 Motion for Hearing; denying 189 Motion for Order; denying 190 Motion for Order; denying 191 Motion for Order; denying 192 Motion for Order; denying 199 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint; denying 200 Motion for Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 12/4/14.Mailed to pro se party Patrick Lynn by regular mail. (aw)

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

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

Case No. 12-3104-MLB-KGG

ORDER DENYING VARIOUS MOTIONS
(DOCS. 189, 190, 191, 192, 199, 200)
Before the Court are six related procedural motions filed by the Plaintiff, appearing pro
se. For the reasons stated below, the motions are DENIED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This is an action against Defendant Maddox, a Correctional Officer at the El Dorado
Correctional Facility, arising out of an alleged 2011 excessive force injury. The incident at issue
occurred when the Plaintiff was being moved from his cell. The Plaintiff was an inmate at that
facility, and remains an inmate at a different State of Kansas facility at Lansing.
In the pending motions the Plaintiff alleges that on September 29 and 30, 2014, while he
was in the Lansing facility’s infirmary receiving medical care, certain facility officers
intentionally and maliciously destroyed or disorganized his legal files relating to this case and to
other legal matters. He does not allege that Defendant Maddox was involved in this event, but
rather alleges that the actions were retaliation for grievances he has filed against other officers at
the Lansing facility. He claims that the event has made it difficult or impossible to proceed in

this case and, together with other challenges at the facility, difficult to file responses to the
pending motion for summary judgment.
As a result of this alleged event, the Plaintiff filed the following motions between
October 14 and November 4, 2014;
Docket No. 189. A motion that this Court hold a telephone hearing and ultimately
schedule an evidentiary hearing on the alleged September 2014 incident (hereafter the “alleged
incident”) for the purpose of holding the responsible officials “accountable” for the retaliatory
action;
Docket No. 190. A motion for the Court to order that a video recording be made of the
condition of his files to support the filing of a “supplemental suit” arising out of the incident and
to support criminal charges against the officials;
Docket No. 191. A motion to order the safekeeping of security camera tapes from the
time of the alleged incident, and an order allowing the Plaintiff to purchase copies, to support
either a supplemental or separate action; and
Docket No. 192. A motion to hold a hearing concerning this incident, and to stay the
current case until the “criminal abuses of authority” by officials are resolved. Also to issue an
order barring any searching or “pack out” of Plaintiff’s property without the presence of a shift
Lieutenant and video record.
Oddly, the Defendant did not file responses to these motions. On November 13, 2014,
this Court took the motions under advisement and ordered (Doc. 193) the Defendant to file a
response, which he did on November 21 (Doc 195). The Plaintiff filed a motion to strike this
response (Doc. 197) which this Court denied (Doc. 202). The Plaintiff also filed a reply to the
Defendant’s response (Doc. 196) which this Court has considered.

When this Court ordered Defendant to file a response (Doc. 193) the Court also ordered
that any further submissions by the Plaintiff concerning these issues would be limited to the
filing of a reply. Notwithstanding this admonition, the Plaintiff has filed the following additional
motions:
Docket No. 199. A motion to file a supplemental or amended complaint alleging an
action based on the alleged incident (and presumably adding as defendants those persons
Plaintiff claims are responsible.)
Docket No. 200. Another motion to stay this case until an evidentiary hearing can be
held on the alleged incident.
RULINGS
Request to Amend the Complaint and Add Parties (Doc. 199).
The September 2014 incident, although Plaintiff claims it resulted in a diminished ability
to prosecute this case, is otherwise unrelated to this litigation. It is a separate incident, not
involving the Defendant. These cases have no common facts or parties, except the Plaintiff
himself. The litigation of the present case is mature, with a motion for summary judgment
pending. The new parties are not among those required to be joined under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 19.
The fairness and efficiency of the present case would be severely harmed if the Plaintiff was
allowed to delay it by beginning, within this case, an entirely new action arising out of unrelated
facts against new parties. The Motion to Amend the Complaint is DENIED.
Evidentiary Hearing and Orders for the Preservation of Evidence (Doc. 189, 190, 191, 192).
Because the alleged incident will not be litigated in this case, it is not appropriate for the
Court to allow discovery, conduct a hearing, or order the preservation of evidence for a future
lawsuit not before this Court. It is certainly not within this Court’s purview to conduct a hearing

as an investigation into possible collateral criminal claims. Motions requesting that relief are
DENIED.
Request to Stay Proceeding in this Case (Doc. 192, 200).
Because the Court is not allowing the amendment of the complaint to include claims
arising out of the alleged incident, or discovery into that matter in this case, the stay of this
matter to allow hearings or investigations in unnecessary. The Court notes that the Plaintiff also
moved for additional time until January 2 to respond to the pending motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 198) to compensate for delay caused by the interference with the Plaintiff’s legal
documents. The District Judge’s recent Order requiring the Plaintiff to file his additional
response by January 5, 2015, in effect provides that relief. The motions to stay the case are
DENIED.
It is, therefore, Ordered that Plaintiff’s Motions (Docs. 189, 190, 191, 192, 199 and 200)
are hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ss/ Kenneth G. Gale
Kenneth G. Gale
United States Magistrate Judge