Stafford v. Murray et al

Filing 80

ORDER denying 61 Motion to Compel Discovery; granting nunc pro tunc 72 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to 61 Motion to Compel. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 5/9/2016. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(cbb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:14-cv-186-FDW
DAMON DEMOND STAFFORD,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FNU MURRAY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, (Doc.
No. 61), and on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re Motion to
Compel. (Doc. No. 72).
Pro se Plaintiff Damon Stafford, a North Carolina prisoner currently incarcerated at
Warren Correctional Institution, filed this action on November 17, 2014, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated his right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual
punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution based on alleged excessive
force and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs while Plaintiff was incarcerated at
Alexander Correctional Institution (“Alexander”). In his Complaint, Plaintiff named as
Defendants (1) FNU Murray, identified as a segregation sergeant at Alexander; (2) FNU
Copeland, identified as a segregation correctional officer at Alexander; (3) FNU Quigley,
identified as a transportation correctional officer at Alexander; (4) FNU Huneycutt, identified as
a captain at Alexander; and (5) David Guinn, identified as a nurse practitioner at Alexander.
On May 7, 2015, this Court found that the action survived initial review as to Plaintiff’s
1

excessive force claims against Defendants Quigley, Copeland, and Murray. (Doc. No. 8). This
Court required Plaintiff to address why his claims as to Defendant Huneycutt and Guinn should
not be dismissed for failure to exhaust. (Id.). Plaintiff then requested leave to file an amended
Complaint, which was granted. (Doc. Nos. 9; 11). This Court again expressed that it appeared
Plaintiff had not adequately exhausted his claims as to Defendants Huneycutt and Guinn, but
allowed the action to continue. (Doc. No. 11). On November 2, 2015, the Court entered an
order granting summary judgment to Defendant Huneycutt and granting Defendant Guinn’s
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 57).
On November 6, 2015, the Court entered a scheduling order, setting the deadline for
discovery as March 2, 2016. (Doc. No. 60). The discovery period has ended. Plaintiff filed the
pending motion to compel discovery on January 11, 2016. (Doc. No. 61). Defendants filed a
response in opposition to the motion to compel on February 8, 2016, and Plaintiff filed a reply on
February 24, 2016. (Doc. Nos. 70; 73).
In their response to the motion to compel, Defendants note that they have engaged in
discovery with Plaintiff, including answering Interrogatories and Requests for Production of
Documents. Defendants note that the remaining discovery requests at issue are three requests for
production from Plaintiff’s First Request for Production to these Defendants, specifically
Numbers 2, 7, and 17. See (Doc. No. 62). For the reasons stated in Defendants’ brief and in this
Order, the motion to compel will be denied.
First, Request No. 2 asks for the names of all inmates receiving care in medical for the
entire day on the day of the alleged excessive force. See (Doc. No. 63-2, No. 7). As Defendants
note, this is not an actual document request, as it does not appear calculated to receive any actual

2

documents. In any event, Defendants note that the requested prison records are maintained in a
classified manner pursuant to statute. See N.C. GEN. STAT. § 148-74 and -76. The North
Carolina Court of Appeals has held that such records are confidential and not subject to
inspection by the public, the inmate, or those acting on behalf of the inmate. See Goble v.
Bounds, 13 N.C. App. 579, 581 (1972). Defendants note, additionally, that providing an
incarcerated inmate information regarding other inmates compromises the safety and security of
the prison facility. In addition, requesting medical records of another individual violates both
state and federal laws, including HIPAA, related to the privacy of medical records. Defendants
and their counsel are bound by laws maintaining the privacy of healthcare records. Finally,
Defendants note that Plaintiff has simply provided nothing to suggest that such an expansive
request is anything more than a fishing expedition. Defendants note that Plaintiff has not once
represented that there was, in fact, another inmate who saw the alleged excessive force.
In sum, Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Request No. 2 is denied.
Next, Request No. 7 asks for “any and all grievances, complaints, investigative files or
other documents filed by other prisoners claiming they were abused by any of the Defendants.”
Defendants contend, and the Court agrees, that the sheer expansiveness of this request makes it
objectionable as it is not limited in any way by time or type of complaint. Furthermore, such a
request is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case,
as Plaintiff’s only remaining claim is one of excessive force by the remaining Defendants on one
occasion. He has not made a “supervisory liability” claim, nor has he suggested some pattern of
abuse against him. Additionally, Plaintiff has been provided any records relating to him, but any
records as to other inmates (as noted above) are statutorily confidential.

3

In sum, Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Request No. 7 is denied.
Next, Request No. 17 asks for any disciplinary measures taken against Defendants and
the reasoning. Again, this request is simply too broad. Furthermore, such documents are
contained in personnel records, which are confidential and, by statute, Plaintiff is not entitled to
inspect Defendants’ personnel files. See N.C. GEN. STAT. § 126-22 - 24 and § 126-27.
Specifically, “personnel file” is defined to include disciplinary actions and an employee’s
personnel file can be examined or inspected only by “authority” of a proper court order. See
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 126-24. Furthermore, the North Carolina General Assembly has deemed it a
misdemeanor for any person who permits unauthorized access to any portion of a State
employee’s personnel file. See N.C. GEN. STAT. § 126-27. Additionally, Defendants’ personnel
files contain sensitive personal information, which implicates privacy interests that are important
given Plaintiff’s status as an inmate. See Chambers v. N.C. Dep’t of Juvenile Justice &
Delinquency Program, No. 1:10cv315, 2013 WL 3776498, at **3-4 (M.D.N.C. July 17, 2013).
In any event, Defendants’ second supplemental response indicates that they have not been
disciplined for any use of force against an inmate. (Doc. No. 70-3 at 4).
In sum, Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Request No. 17 is denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, (Doc.
No. 61), is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re
Motion to Compel, (Doc. No. 72), is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.
Signed: May 9, 2016

4