Claiborne v. Bradley

Filing 35

ORDER denying 34 Motion for Newly Discovered Evidence and Discovery to be Accessed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on January 17, 2017.(jg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
TOMMIEL QUENPONTA CLAIBORNE

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15cv118-MTP

MRS. DIXON

DEFENDANT
ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Newly Discovered
Evidence and Discovery to be Accessed [34]. The Court construes this as a motion for
reconsideration of the Final Judgment [33] entered in this case and as a motion for further
discovery. Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be denied.
On December 7, 2015, Plaintiff Tommiel Quenponta Claiborne, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The allegations in Plaintiff’s
complaint occurred while he was a post-conviction inmate at Wilkinson County Correctional
Facility (“WCCF”) in Woodville, Mississippi. Plaintiff is currently housed as an inmate at East
Mississippi Correctional Facility (“EMCF”). In his complaint and as clarified in his testimony at
the Spears hearing,1 Plaintiff asserted claims against Defendant Dixon relating to not receiving a
mattress within he first few days of his stay at WCCF. He claims a lack of a mattress injured his
back.
On August 15, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [29]. On
September 28, 2016, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and entered
a final judgment, dismissing this action with prejudice. See Opinion and Order [32]; Final
Judgment [33].

1

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

On December 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Newly Discovered Evidence
and Discovery to be Accessed [34], arguing that the Court should allow further discovery of
medical records from the prison, EMCF, where he is currently housed because these medical
records will show that his injury is not de minimus.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides for relief from a final judgment in the
following limited circumstances:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier
judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no
longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Plaintiff has failed to show that any of the aforementioned grounds for relief from
judgment exist, and he does not explain why he never requested these documents while his case
was pending. The record demonstrates that Plaintiff was given an opportunity to conduct
discovery. On May 2, 2016, the Court set an omnibus hearing in this case and ordered the parties
to be prepared to discuss and identify any and all discovery requests or issues at the hearing. See
Order [20]. At the omnibus hearing held on April 5, 2016, the Court considered discovery issues
and ordered the parties to produce documents and information which included Plaintiff’s medical
records from WCCF. See Omnibus Order [23]. The Court also explained as follows:
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, the amount in
controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the
2

burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefits. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The parties shall not propound additional discovery
requests unless leave of court is requested and obtained.
Id. at 3
Thereafter, Plaintiff did not seek leave of court to propound additional discovery to try to
obtain other medical records from EMCF. Plaintiffs now seeks these medical records months
after his case was dismissed. Plaintiff has not shown that these medical records from EMCF are
“newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered”
while the case was pending. The record reflects that Plaintiff has been in custody at EMCF the
entire pendency of this case.
Additionally, Plaintiff has not established that further discovery would be likely to
produce any facts that would establish a genuine issue of material fact as to any of his claims.
See Aguirre v. Nueces County, Tex., 217 Fed. App’x. 348, 349-50 (5th Cir. 2007). The discovery
Plaintiff seeks is to show that his injury was not de minimis. The Court did not rule that
Plaintiff’s alleged injury was de minimis, but ruled that Plaintiff did not come forward with any
evidence to show that Dixon was deliberately indifferent or meant to cause him harm or knew
that there may be excessive risk to his health or safety. Thus any new evidence based on the
severity of Plaintiff’s alleged injury would not change the outcome of the Court’s summary
judgment ruling.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Newly Discovered Evidence
and Discovery to be Accessed [34] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this the 17th day of January, 2017.
s/Michael T. Parker
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3