Turner v. Hayden et al

Filing 54

MEMORANDUM RULING re 43 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Judge re 41 Order on Motion to Compel, filed by Carlton Tremell Turner. Signed by Judge S Maurice Hicks on 11/29/2016. (crt,McDonnell, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
CARLTON TREMELL TURNER

CIVIL ACTION NO.15-2282-P

VERSUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

STEVEN HAYDEN, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
MEMORANDUM RULING

Before the Court is a Magistrate Appeal (Record Document 43) filed by Plaintiff
Carlton Tremell Turner (“Turner”), an inmate at David Wade Correctional Center
(“DWCC”). In the instant appeal, Turner argues that Magistrate Judge Hornsby’s Order
(Record Document 41) granting in part and denying in part Turner’s Motion to Compel
Discovery (Record Document 33) was erroneous.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action involves allegations by Turner that several staff
members at DWCC (1) retaliated against him for filing previous grievances against
officers by falsifying Rule Violation Reports (“RVRs”) against Turner in violation of his
right to procedural due process and (2) inflicted cruel and unusual punishment upon
Turner in violation of the Eighth Amendment by failing to grant Turner a “heat pathology”
duty status. See Record Document 1 at 3-5. Turner alleges that he deserves such a status
because he takes medication that makes him particularly sensitive to heat. See id. Such
a status would allow him to avoid field work outside and any potential heat strokes or
other forms of heat sickness that he alleges may result from working outside. See id.
In Turner’s Motion to Compel Discovery, he sought to compel Defendants to
respond to three of his requests for production. See Record Document 33. In the instant
appeal, Turner only argues that the Magistrate erred in denying the Motion to Compel
Page 1 of 4

with respect to Request Number 10. See Record Document 43. Request Number 10
asked for any and all grievances, complaints, or other documents received by Defendant
Steven Hayden or his agents at the prison concerning the mistreatment of inmates or
falsifying RVRs against inmates in retaliation or for other reasons, plus any memoranda,
investigative files, or other documents created in response to such complaints since
January 1, 2011. See Record Documents 33-1 at 3 and 41 at 3. Magistrate Hornsby
denied the Motion to Compel with respect to this request on the grounds that it (1) was
overbroad; (2) would intrude on the privacy of other inmates by exposing their confidential
grievance complaints to another inmate; (3) and would impose an unwarranted burden
upon Defendants to review thousands of inmate files to comply with the request. See id.
In his appeal, Turner argues that denying the Motion to Compel for Request
Number 10 was erroneous because the “request does not stray afield from the facts
relevant to Plaintiff’s claim, as one of Plaintiff’s claims alleges Defendant Steven Hayden
falsified RVRs against him in retaliation for filing a grievance against the mental health
department and later, this lawsuit.” Record Document 43. He also argues that in a
previous lawsuit against prison officials, a Motion to Compel was granted for a similar
request for production. See id.
I.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Any party may appeal a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter to a
district court judge under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local
Rule 74.1. The decision by Magistrate Hornsby to deny Turner’s Motion to Compel
Discovery is a non-dispositive matter. In reviewing a non-dispositive pretrial matter, the

Page 2 of 4

Court must determine whether the Magistrate's order was clearly erroneous or contrary
to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
II.

ANALYSIS

Magistrate Hornsby’s decision was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) states that parties may only obtain discovery that
is “proportional to the needs of the case” and that “whether the burden or expense of the
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit” is a relevant consideration in determining
whether a discovery request is in the scope of discovery. Request Number 10 asked for
almost five years’ worth of inmate grievances, complaints, and other documents
concerning mistreatment of inmates or falsified RVRs. See Record Document 33-1 at 3.
Sifting through the undoubtedly voluminous records of inmate complaints to comply with
this request would place a heavy burden on Defendants, one that is out of step with Rule
26’s focus on the proportionality of discovery requests to the needs of the case. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26 (b) advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment. Magistrate Hornsby’s
conclusion that the production of all such documents would endanger the confidentiality
of inmate grievances also supports the conclusion that the request is overbroad and is
not proportional to the needs of the case. See Record Document 41.
Finally, Turner’s argument on the basis of the Court’s decision in a Motion to
Compel in a prior lawsuit is unpersuasive. Turner argues that Request Number 10 in the
instant action is similar to his request in a previous case against corrections officers at
DWCC and that he is “entitled to the same ruling” on the Motion to Compel as in that
case. Record Document 43. However, in that case Turner filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging excessive force by a corrections officer when Turner was allegedly sprayed with

Page 3 of 4

a chemical agent while in full restraints in a closed cell. See Turner v. Thomas, 2015 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 107459 (W.D. La. 2015). He made a request for production asking for any
and all grievances, complaints, or other documents received by prison officials concerning
the mistreatment of inmates and administering chemical agents maliciously or wrongly on
inmates by the corrections officer in question, as well as any investigative files or other
documents created in response to such requests during the entire duration of all of the
defendants’ employment. See Turner v. Thomas, 13-cv-2818, Record Document 53.
There, Magistrate Hornsby did not grant the Motion to Compel as drafted by
Turner. See id. Instead, he only granted the Motion to Compel with respect to incidents
involving the use of chemical agents, a much more limited and specific subset of potential
excessive force incidents, and only for a period of three years prior to the incident forming
the basis of the lawsuit. See id. Therefore, the Court finds the request in the instant action
to be factually distinguishable from the request in Turner v. Thomas.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Magistrate Appeal (Record Document 43) be and
is hereby DENIED and Magistrate Judge Hornsby’s Order of March 24, 2015 (Record
Document 41) is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this the 29th day of
November, 2016.

Page 4 of 4