Harris v. Hill

Filing 68

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 53 MOTION to Supplement 13 Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff Jim Harris, Jr., 63 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Jim Harris, Jr., 55 MOTION for Leave to filed by Defendant Nina Hill, 46 PRO SE MOTION to Appoint Masters filed by Plaintiff Jim Harris, Jr., 39 MOTION to Seal Document 29 Affidavit, 30 Affidavit filed by Plaintiff Jim Harris, Jr., 40 MOTION for Reconsideration re 36 Memorandum & Order, filed by Pla intiff Jim Harris, Jr., 47 PRO SE MOTION for Court Appointed Expert filed by Plaintiff Jim Harris, Jr. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to File Under Seal (#39) is DENIED. The Clerk shall send to plaintiff a current copy of th e docket sheet. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider (#40) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Master (#46) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Expe rt (#47) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Add Ex. ID(3) (#53) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel to Take Depositions (#63) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's Motion to File Surreply (#55) is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 6/29/17. (CSG) (Main Document 68 replaced on 6/29/2017) (CSG).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
JIM HARRIS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
NINA HILL, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-83 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
This matter is before the Court on numerous motions filed by plaintiff. Each is
discussed in turn below.
I.

Motion to File Under Seal (#39)
Plaintiff seeks to seal certain documents in accordance with E.D. Mo. Local Rule

83-13.05, which states “Upon a showing of good cause the Court may order that
documents filed in a civil case be received and maintained by the Clerk under seal.”
Plaintiff seeks to have sealed two affidavits, a motion for a preliminary injunction, and a
motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff offers no reason why these documents
should be sealed. Because “good cause” has not been shown, the motion will be denied.
Plaintiff also seeks “stamped filed copies with doc[ument] numbers on each of the
documents filed to retain for his records, in order to submit these documents to the
defendants in this case.” The defendants have already been served with all documents
filed in this case. The Clerk shall send to plaintiff a current copy of the docket sheet so
that he is made aware of document numbers assigned to his filings.

1

II.

Motion to Reconsider (#40)
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court’s order (#36) denying his motions for

preliminary injunction, and the parties subsequently filed hundreds of pages of exhibits
and multiple briefs regarding this motion. Plaintiff states that the defendants falsified
documents because the pagination is different in two sets of records. However, the
documents about which plaintiff complains are electronic medical records, and their
pagination will differ depending on the date range requested. There is no substantive
difference between the records.
Plaintiff suggests in his “Objection” (#50) that defendant’s Exhibit B to
defendant’s response memorandum has been falsified because it different from
“plaintiff’s exhibits,” but he does not explain further. Plaintiff’s exhibits in support of his
Preliminary Injunction Motion (#23) makes an unclear reference to “Bottom Bunk,”
stating
Current Duty Status: 2
CARDIAC HISTORY-LOWER BUNK
Lay-In Restrictions:
NO MARCHING
NO PROLONGED STANDING
NO REPETITIVE BENDING, STOOPING, SQUATTING
NO RUNNING BASKETBALL OR HANDBALL
NO SNOW SHOVELING
(#23 at 1.) Plaintiff has not explained what “Cardiac History- Lower Bunk” means in
connection with the “Current Duty Status” reference, but it is clear that “Lower Bunk”
was not a Lay-In Restriction. Defendant’s Exhibit B makes clear that plaintiff’s Lower
Bunk Lay-in/Restriction began July 20, 2012 and ended January 20, 2013. The events
relevant to this case (and defendant Nina Hill’s treatment of plaintiff) took place

2

beginning in June 2015, and the documentation support this Court’s memorandum.
Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider will be denied.
III.

Motion to Appoint Master (#46)
Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint a special master to obtain and investigate

medical records. Although plaintiff is correct that this case involves numerous
documents, that is not unusual in litigation, and there is no need for appointment of a
special master.
IV.

Motion to Appoint Expert (#47)
Plaintiff seeks appointment of a neurologist and states that defendant filed a false

affidavit stating that plaintiff had been (before arriving in custody as a prisoner) shot in
the shoulder. Plaintiff states that he was shot in the neck, not the shoulder. Defendant
explains that the location in which plaintiff was shot --- just above the clavicle --- may be
characterized as both the shoulder and the base of the neck. Plaintiff’s claim against
defendant Hill is, as this Court articulated, that she “terminated his lay-in and assigned
him to the top walk and top bunk.” (#9 at 2.) Plaintiff has not demonstrated a need for a
court-appointed expert.
V.

Motion to Add Ex. ID(3) (#53)
Plaintiff seeks to add as an exhibit to his complaint a photograph of his hand,

which he says shows that he has experienced atrophy and paralysis. He also says it
supports his motions for expert and counsel appointments. The Court is denying those
motions, and there is no reason to supplement the complaint with an independent
photograph. Should plaintiff need to attach the photograph as evidence in support of a
memorandum, he may do so at the appropriate time and with the appropriate
authentication.
3

VI.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel to Take Depositions (#63)
Plaintiff states that defendant Hill has been terminated from her employment at

Southeastern Correctional Center (“SECC”), and that he needs to depose her and others
regarding that termination. He states that attorney Kevin Dolley, who represents plaintiff
in another matter, should be appointed. Defendant responds that she is still employed at
SECC, so there is no reason for the deposition plaintiff seeks. The Court agrees. The
motion will be denied.
VII.

Defendant’s Motion to File Surreply (#55)
Defendant seeks leave to file a Surreply addressing plaintiff’s claim that defendant

has falsified documents. This motion will be granted. Defendant appears to have filed
the Surreply (see #60), but, if defendant has additional information to convey, she may
file it.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal (#39) is
DENIED. The Clerk shall send to plaintiff a current copy of the docket sheet.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (#40) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Master (#46) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Expert (#47) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Add Ex. ID(3) (#53) is
DENIED.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of
Counsel to Take Depositions (#63) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to File Surreply (#55) is
GRANTED.

Dated this 29th day of June, 2017.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5