Rosa-Diaz v. Harry et al

Filing 63

MEMORANDUM ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the dfts will confirm the pltfs receipt of these answers to written deposition questions on or before April 1, 2019. Dfts have also moved to depose Inmate Maple. (Doc. 61 .) Pursuant to Rule 30(a) of the Federa l Rules of Civil Procedure, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion of Dfts for Permission to take the Deposition of inmate Maple is GRANTED. Rosa-Diaz, in turn, has filed a motion to enjoin prison officials frompreventing his communication with witness es, (Doc. 59 ), and a motion to reconsider appointment of cnsl in order to facilitate discovery. (Doc. 62 .) Because these motions are unaccompanied by briefs as required by the rules of this court, and because we believe that the steps taken to facilitate discovery have been sufficient to ensure full and fair discovery for all parties, these motions are DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on March 12, 2019. (kjn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GABRIEL ROSA-DIAZ,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
LAUREL HARRY, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil No. 1:17-CV-2215
(Judge Rambo)

(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
This is a pro se state prisoner civil rights lawsuit. One of the surviving claims
in this case is an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim brought by
Rosa-Diaz who alleges that in March and April of 2017, while he was a state prisoner
housed at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) Camp Hill, he was housed in a cell
where “there were human feces inside the air conditioner and exhaust ventilations
[in his new cell]; . . . the plumbing for the hot water did not work and plaintiff did
not had [sic] access to hot water; . . . the exhaust air ventilation was broken and
inoperative and; . . . the cell smelled of urine and feces.” (Doc. 12-1, ¶ 36.)
With the issues in this litigation framed in this fashion, on January 10, 2019
we authorized Rosa-Diaz to propound questions by a written deposition to inmate
Eric Maples. (Doc. 58.) Our order provided as follows:
The plaintiff’s motion to depose Eric Maple on written questions (Doc.
57) is GRANTED. Pursuant to the prior proposal of defense counsel,
1

(Doc. 53), counsel for the defendants shall cause the written questions
proffered by the plaintiff, (Doc. 57-1) and a copy of this order to be
delivered to Eric Maple on or before January 30, 2019. Maple is
ORDERED to provide written answers to these proffered questions
under oath on or before February 13, 2019. Counsel for the defendants
shall then ensure that this discovery material is provided to the plaintiff
on or before February 27, 2019.
In order to confirm the completion of this process, IT IS ORDERED that the
defendants will confirm the plaintiff’s receipt of these answers to written deposition
questions on or before April 1, 2019.
For their part, the defendants have also moved to depose Inmate Maple. (Doc.
61.) Pursuant to Rule 30(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion of Defendants for Permission to take the Deposition of
inmate Maple is GRANTED and the Warden of the State Correctional Institution is
directed to produce the witness for a deposition at a date convenient to the Warden
of State Correctional Institution, all counsel and parties.
Rosa-Diaz, in turn, has filed a motion to enjoin prison officials from
preventing his communication with witnesses, (Doc. 59), and a motion to reconsider
appointment of counsel in order to facilitate discovery. (Doc. 62.) Because these
motions are unaccompanied by briefs as required by the rules of this court, and
because we believe that the steps taken to facilitate discovery have been sufficient
to ensure full and fair discovery for all parties, these motions are DENIED without
prejudice.

2

So ordered this 12th day of March 2019.

S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

3