Hagan v. Harris et al

Filing 142

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 120 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Damont Hagan, 122 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Damont Hagan. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on October 16, 2015. (kjn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAMONT HAGAN,
Plaintiff
v.
QUENTIN DOLPHIN, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 1:13-CV-2731
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
The plaintiff in this action, Damont Hagan, is an inmate in the custody of the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC), currently housed at the State
Correctional Institution at Huntingdon. He is also a frequent litigant in federal court.
In this case, Hagan has sued five individuals, all of whom are contracted with or
employed by the DOC, alleging that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to modify
his health diagnosis and discontinue his prescription medications in order to keep him
hidden from certain Department of Justice officials who were intending to tour the
facility and interview inmates as part of an investigation. Hagan also alleges that the
defendants took these actions to retaliate against him for filing grievances and other
litigation against prison staff. Additionally, Hagan alleges that the defendants
prolonged his detention in segregated housing, and exhibited deliberate indifference
to his serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The case now comes before the court, once again, for resolution of a discovery
dispute. Specifically, on May 18, 2015, we entered an order which provided in part
that: “If the defendants have copies of the grievances and staff requests that the
plaintiff is seeking in the plaintiff’s fourth request for the production of documents
(Doc. 95, Ex. Z-7), they shall provide copies to the plaintiff within 14 days from the
date of this Order.” (Doc. 104.) Hagan subsequently filed two motions, (Docs. 120
and 122), which we understand allege that the defendants have not fully complied
with this discovery demand. The correctional defendants have responded to these
motions by stating that: “in the interest of avoiding continued litigation on this issue,
the undersigned counsel has advised SCI-Frackville to make the entirety of Plaintiff’s
voluminous grievance history (including all appeals and responses) and any
previously submitted staff requests available to him for review and copying, at his
own expense.” (Doc. 125, p.3.) We believe that this course of action fully complies
with our May 18, 2015 discovery order. Since the defendants have taken this step,
therefore, we will DENY these motions to compel, (Docs. 120 and 122), to the extent
that the motions sought further relief beyond that provided by the defendants.
So ordered this 16th day of October 2015.
/S/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

2