Knight v. Millsap et al

Filing 27

OMNIBUS ORDER; ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion to Compel; denying ore tenus Motion to Appoint Counsel; granting ore tenus Motion for jury trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on November 18, 2011. (KM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION
STEVEN MICHAEL KNIGHT

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11cv161-MTP

JASON MILLSAP, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS
OMNIBUS ORDER

The parties appeared and participated in an omnibus hearing before the undersigned
United States Magistrate Judge on November 17, 2011. Plaintiff appeared pro se, and Seth
Hunter, standing in for James K. Dukes, Jr., appeared on behalf of Defendants Jason Millsap,
Officer Corley, Sheriff Billy Magee, and the Forrest County Board of Supervisors. The court
scheduled this hearing for the combined purposes of conducting a Spears1 hearing; a
scheduling/case management hearing; and a discovery conference. The court’s purpose in
conducting the hearing is to ensure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of this pro se
prisoner litigation. After due consideration of the issues involved in this case and the requests
for discovery,
THE COURT DOES HEREBY FIND AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
JURISDICTION AND SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
Jurisdiction of this case is based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s claims occurred
while he was housed at the Forrest County Jail awaiting trial on a felony charge and a revocation
hearing on a probation violation. He is currently incarcerated at the South Mississippi
Correctional Institution. Plaintiff’s claims were clarified and amended by his sworn testimony

1

Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).
1

during the Spears hearing;2 accordingly, only the following claims remain pending before the
court and no further amendments will be allowed absent a showing of good cause so that this
case may proceed to disposition:3
Plaintiff alleges claims against Defendants for excessive force. Specifically, he claims
that in April 2011, Officer Corley and Officer Jason Millsap assaulted him for no reason. He
claims they hit him in the face, slammed him on the ground, and continued to assault him after
he was restrained. As a result, he suffered injuries. He claims he wrote letters and sent
grievances to Sheriff Billy McGee regarding the incident, and he failed to do anything.
He claims Sheriff McGee and the Forrest County Board of Supervisors are responsible
for Officer Corley’s and Officer Millsap’s actions. He claims he is not the first inmate that has
been assaulted by these officers and that Sheriff McGee and the Board are aware of the prior
assaults. He claims it is a pattern and practice that they are aware of and that Sheriff McGee and
the Board actually condone it.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for his medical bills and for his pain, suffering and
emotional distress.
DISCOVERY AND OTHER ISSUES
1.

Defendants are directed to produce to Plaintiff copies of the following: Plaintiff’s

medical records from April 2011 to present, any incident reports from the alleged incident in

2

See Hurns v. Parker, 165 F.3d 24, No. 98-60006, 1998 WL 870696, at *1 (5th Cir. Dec.
2, 1998); Riley v. Collins, 828 F.2d 306, 307 (5th Cir. 1987) (stating that plaintiff’s claims and
allegations made at Spears hearing supersede claims alleged in complaint).
3

The court makes no finding as to whether such claims are meritorious at this time.
Moreover, this summary of claims is not meant to be an exhaustive recitation of the facts alleged
at the hearing in support of the claims.
2

April 2011, any videos of the incident, any photographs taken after the incident, and any
grievances or correspondence exchanged with Defendants regarding the incident. Defendants
produced some documents to Plaintiff during the hearing. Defendants are ordered to produce
any remaining documents, photographs and videos and/or a statement that such documents and
things do not exist by December 19, 2011. Further, Plaintiff executed a medical authorization;
Defendants are ordered to produce to Plaintiff a copy of any and all records received pursuant to
the medical authorization upon receipt of such records.
2.

Plaintiff’s Motion [25] to Compel is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s

motion is granted to the extent it seeks the documents and things set forth above. The remainder
of Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
3.

There are no other discovery issues pending at this time. The discovery

allowed herein will fairly and adequately develop the issues to be presented to the court, and no
other discovery is deemed reasonable or appropriate considering the issues at stake in this
litigation. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).
4.

The deadline for filing motions (other than motions in limine) is February 15,

5.

Plaintiff’s ore tenus motion for a jury trial is granted. Once any dispositive

2012.

motions are ruled on, any remaining claims will be set for a jury trial.
6.

Plaintiff’s ore tenus motion for counsel is denied. Plaintiff failed to set forth any

exceptional circumstances which would warrant the appointment of counsel. See Freeze v.
Griffith, 849 F.2d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 1988); Good v. Allain, 823 F.2d 64, 66 (5th Cir. 1987);
Feist v. Jefferson County Comm’rs Court, 778 F.2d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Ulmer v.
Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). As evidenced by his pleadings and his testimony
3

during the hearing, Plaintiff is capable of adequately presenting his claims to the court.
7.

Plaintiff’s failure to advise this court of a change of address or failure to comply

with any order of this court will be deemed as a purposeful delay and may be grounds for
dismissal without notice to Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 18th day of November, 2011.
s/ Michael T. Parker
United States Magistrate Judge

4