White v. Jindal et al
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ADD NEWLY OBTAINED AND OR DISCOVERED EVIDENCE AND FUTURE SAFETY (Doc. 247). Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 13-15073
PAUL KLEE, LEE McROBERT, and
HON. AVERN COHN
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ADD NEWLY OBTAINED AND OR
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE AND FUTURE SAFETY (Doc. 247)1
This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial
proceedings. (Doc. 12). Following motion practice and several reports and
recommendations which were adopted by the Court, plaintiff’s remaining claims relate to
his refusal to “snitch” on fellow inmates and the alleged failure of Paul Klee, the Warden
at the Gus Harrison Facility, Lee McRobert, the Deputy Warden, and Louis Condon, a
Resident Unit Manager (“defendants”) to properly protect him from gang members. In
other words, plaintiff is asserting a First Amendment retaliation claim. The magistrate
judge has certified that the pretrial proceedings were completed. (Doc. 201).
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion styled “Motion to Add Newly Obtained and or
Upon review of the parties’ papers, the Court deems this matter appropriate for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2).
Discovered Evidence of Damages and Future Safety.” (Doc. 247). For the reasons that
follow, the motion is DENIED.
As an initial matter, the parties recently filed cross motions for summary
judgment directed at the merits of plaintiff’s claims. (Docs. 239, 243). Responses have
been filed. (Docs. 245, 249). The Court will consider the motions after any replies are
In the instant motion, plaintiff says that he was threatened and assaulted by
another inmate on June 10, 2019 who referenced plaintiff’s allegations regarding
snitching in this case. Plaintiff says he later requested video of the incident from the
Litigation Coordinator at Lakeland Correctional Facility (Lakeland) where plaintiff is
currently lodged. Plaintiff says he is aware that the video does not have audio
capabilities, but that it would show the other inmate slapping plaintiff across the face.
Plaintiff requests that the Court order the undersigned to preserve the video and
produce it to the Court. He also asks for a show cause hearing wherein the Attorney
General must answer for its failure to order the MDOC to transfer Plaintiff to Thumb
Correctional Facility, plaintiff’s preferred facility.
Defendants contend that plaintiff’s requests lack merit and should be denied.
The Court agrees. As to a transfer, inmates do not have a right to choose the facility in
which they are lodged. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976) (“The
Constitution does not require that the State have more than one prison for convicted
felons; nor does it guarantee that the convicted prisoner will be placed in any particular
prison”). Nor has plaintiff argued for a Temporary Restraining Order or Injunction that
would enable the Court to determine whether it should order the MDOC to transfer him.
In short, there is no basis to order a transfer.
As to the video, as described in the affidavit of Russ Rurka, the litigation
coordinator at Lakeland, the video was destroyed per MDOC’s retention policy and
plaintiff did not timely or properly request its preservation. Moreover, even if the June
10, 2019 video had been preserved and even if it depicts exactly what plaintiff says it
does, the video does not have sound. Thus, it would not contain the alleged verbal
statements about plaintiff being a rat, which, according to plaintiff, would support his
claims in this case. Simply put, a video without sound that shows another inmate
assaulting plaintiff in June of 2019 has no probative value in this case about alleged
retaliation and failure to protect from six years ago at a different facility.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?