Brown v. Voorhies et al

Filing 266

OPINION AND ORDER denying 263 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; granting in part and denying in part 265 Plaintiff's Motion requesting documents. Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 11/1/11. (sem1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
STEVEN S. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 07-cv-13
Judge Gregory L. Frost

v.
WARDEN VOORHIES, et al.,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting More Time for
Discovery (ECF No. 263) and Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting an Order to ODRC to Allow
Plaintiff’s Legal Papers and Other Evidence be Allowed Back Into the Prison and Order Access
to the Courts (“Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Documents”) (ECF No. 265). For the reasons that
follow, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting More Time for Discovery
and DENIES IN PART AND GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Documents.
A. Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting More Time for Discovery
Plaintiff filed this action on January 9, 2007. Since that time, Plaintiff has requested
eighteen extensions of deadlines. In this latest request, Plaintiff, for the seventh time, requests
an extension in time to complete discovery. (ECF Nos. 155, 173, 187, 189, 205, 221, 232.) This
Court has previously granted Plaintiff’s requests to extend the discovery deadline and also
granted Plaintiff’s previous counsel’s requests at two separate status conferences to extend the
discovery deadline. These requests resulted in the discovery deadline changing from September
30, 2009, to October 30, 2009, to January 20, 2010, to April 1, 2010, to October 31, 2010, to
June 30, 2011, to October 31, 2011. (ECF Nos. 145, 166, 177, 194, 229, 237, 253, 254.)
1

Unquestionably, Plaintiff has been given ample opportunity to complete discovery.
Moreover, after the last extension of time was granted, this Court established a schedule
for the remainder of this action, setting a dispositive motions deadline of November 30, 2011, a
final pretrial conference on April 12, 2012, and trial on May 14, 2012. An extension of
discovery would necessitate an extension of these dates. The Court declines to extend any of
these dates and will abide by this established schedule.
B. Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Documents
In Plaintiff’s motion, he explains that his previous lawyer, James E. Arnold, is in
possession of his legal file related to this action. Plaintiff requests that this file be returned to
him. That request is well taken. The Court will forward a copy of this Opinion and Order to Mr.
Arnold and direct him to return Plaintiff’s legal file to the prison at which Plaintiff is housed.
Next, Plaintiff asks that the Court order the Director of the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Corrections to permit Plaintiff to have his legal file pursuant to special
arrangements ordered by this Court. Specifically, Plaintiff complains that the prison regulations
permit him only a 2.4 square feet of property in his cell, that he is not permitted to send
documents for copying, is not permitted a DVD player, is only allowed access to his legal papers
held outside of his cell once a month, is permitted to use the law library only four hours per
week, and is required to use the inmate pay telephones that are monitored. Plaintiff requests the
Court to order the prison to not enforce these regulations against him because being forced to
abide by these regulations makes “it is impossible to proceed” with this litigation. (ECF No. 265
at 3.) Plaintiff argues that he is, therefore, being denied access to the courts. Plaintiff’s
argument is not well taken.

2

The right of access to the courts “requires that prisoners be provided with the tools to
challenge their sentences or the conditions of their confinement.” Britford v. Collins, No.
2:07-cv-306, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29982, at *6 (S.D. Ohio March 29, 2010) (citing Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 355, 116 S. Ct. 2174, 135 L. Ed. 2d 606 (1996). “Such tools include the
means to ‘adequately prepare and file the necessary legal documents.’ ” Id. (citing Eberle v.
Wilkinson, No. 2:03-cv-272, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46296, at *7 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2005)
(citing Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 823-24, 97 S. Ct. 1491, 52 L. Ed. 2d 72 (1977) quoting
Johnson v. Hubbard, 698 F.2d 286, 288 (6th Cir. 1983)). “However, the right of prisoners to
prepare legal documents is not unrestricted.” Id. “ ‘Restrictions on the time, place, and manner
in which inmates may engage in legal research and preparation of legal papers are constitutional’
so long as the restrictions do not unreasonably frustrate the right of access to the courts.” Eberle,
supra, at *6-7 (citing Walker v. Mintzes, 771 F.2d 920, 932 (6th Cir. 1985)).
In the instant action, Plaintiff has filed 98 documents with this Court, 54 of those being
motions. Based on this view of the entire record, Plaintiff was certainly not unconstitutionally
restricted from access to the courts by prison officials. See Britford, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
29982, at *7 (viewing “the entire record” the court found that the plaintiff “readily exercised his
right of access to the courts by filing two motions for an extension of time and a motion for
judgment on the pleadings during the time period he was allegedly deprived of access to the law
library”); see also Gordon v. U.S., No. 2:06-cv-00065, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22222 (S.D. Ohio
Mar. 20, 2008) (noting that documents submitted by the inmate indicate that prison officials
provided him with adequate resources to access the courts); Mayes v. Province, 353 F. App’x
100 (10th Cir. Nov. 6, 2009) (noting that filing numerous post-conviction motions weighed in

3

favor of having access to the courts).
C. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting
More Time for Discovery (ECF No. 263) and DENIES IN PART AND GRANTS IN PART
Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Documents (ECF No. 265). Specifically, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s motion to the extent it requests that Attorney James E. Arnold return his legal file to
the prison and DENIES the remainder of Plaintiff’s motion.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward by email a copy of this Opinion and Order to
Attorney James E. Arnold. Mr. Arnold is DIRECTED to return forthwith Plaintiff’s legal file to
the prison in which he is housed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4