Brown v. Rivard et al
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 53 Motion to Compel--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
TRENT BROWN #210522,
Case No. 5:16-CV-12362
District Judge Judith Levy
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR
ORDER ENJOINING RESTITUTION (DE 53)
Pending is Plaintiff’s April 10, 2018 motion to compel and for order
enjoining restitution, and Defendant Stephen Barnes’ response. (DEs 53, 54.)
Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit alleging, in relevant part, that Defendant Barnes
“defamed” him by filing a false misconduct report regarding a physical altercation
in his cell, and thus violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. (DE 1,
¶ 51, “Relief Requested” ¶ 2.) Plaintiff’s motion seeks an order compelling
production of video footage of the altercation to the Court for in camera review in
conjunction with a determination on the parties’ pending summary judgment
motions. The motion also seeks to compel Defendant to provide Plaintiff with a
free copy of his deposition transcript. Finally, the motion seeks an order enjoining
the restitution award. (DE 53.)
First, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s report and recommendation on
the parties’ motions for summary judgment (DE 57), Plaintiff’s motion to compel
production of the video footage for in camera review is DENIED. In its motion
for summary judgment, Defendant offered to provide video footage to the court for
in camera review. (DE 49 at 7, n.1.) However, as the Court explained in its report
and recommendation, because it “do[es] not have jurisdiction to relitigate de novo
the determinations made in prison disciplinary hearings,” Mullins v. Smith, 14
F.Supp.2d 1009, 1012 (E.D. Mich. 1998), and because there is “some evidence” in
the record supporting the hearing officer’s findings, the Court’s independent
review of the video evidence—which the hearing officer reviewed and expressly
found “does support the charge”—is not necessary for the Court’s ruling on the
pending motions for summary judgment.
Second, Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of a copy of his deposition
transcript is DENIED. Plaintiff is responsible for his own litigation expenses,
including a copy of his deposition transcript. See, e.g., Green v. Miller, No. 2:13CV-14247, 2015 WL 1014914, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 9, 2015) (“‘An indigent
plaintiff bears his own litigation expenses.’”) (quoting Dujardine v. Mich. Dep’t of
Corrs., No. 1:07-cv-701, 2009 WL 3401172, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 19 2009));
see also Taylor v. Burt, No. 1:16-cv-9, 2017 WL 4271747, at *4 (W.D. Mich. May
24, 2017) (defense counsel properly denied plaintiff’s request that defendant
provide him, at no cost a copy of his deposition transcript), report and
recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 4238919 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 25, 2017).
Further, Defendant did not introduce or otherwise rely upon Plaintiff’s deposition
testimony in support of its motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that his deposition transcript was necessary for determination of his
or Defendant’s motions for summary judgment.
Finally, Plaintiff’s motion for an order enjoining the award of restitution is
DENIED, for the reasons stated in my most recent report and recommendation.
(DE 57.) The potential sanction of restitution is disclosed in the MDOC policy
directive regarding prisoner discipline, which clearly states that restitution is one of
four sanctions the hearing officer may impose upon a finding of guilt for a Class I
Misconduct, MDOC Policy Directive 03.03.105 (effective April 9, 2010),
Attachment D Disciplinary Sanction, and the Court found in its report and
recommendation that the restitution award here does not implicate a protected
liberty or property interest and that the award was neither atypical nor arbitrary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 25, 2018
s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on June 25, 2018, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti
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?