Collins v. Bledsoe et al

Filing 166

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 124 MOTION for Contempt filed by Larry Joe Collins, 126 MOTION to Suppress filed by Larry Joe Collins. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick on 6/8/2017. (cw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LARRY JOE COLLINS,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-02244

v.

(CONNER, C.J.)
(MEHALCHICK, M.J.)

WARDEN B.A. BLEDSOE, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
Before the Court are two motions relating to discovery matters filed by pro se Plaintiff
Larry Joe Collins on October 20, 2016. In the first, a motion for contempt, Collins argues that
the Defendants have ignored Court Orders relating to the provision of disciplinary records for
Defendant corrections officers. (Doc. 124; Doc. 125). Second, Collins moves to suppress the
entry of deposition testimony into evidence, where Collins was the deposed, as he states the
transcript is inaccurate. (Doc. 126). For the reasons stated below, both are DENIED.
In his motion for contempt, Collins argues that the Defendants failed to adhere to the
terms of the Memorandum and Order dated October 7, 2015 (Doc. 119), wherein the
Defendants were to conduct an internal review to identify any misconduct on the part of named
corrections officer Defendants Fleming, R. Johnson, or T. Johnson. (Doc. 124; Doc. 125).
Magistrate Judge Carlson’s Order provided the BOP 30 days to produce documents resulting
from this investigation for in camera review on their relevance to the instant matter and, if
deemed relevant by the reviewing judge, to provide the documents to Collins. (Doc. 119, at 20).
On September 15, 2016, assuming no such documents had been found, District Judge Kosik set
the deadline for dispositive motions to November 1, 2016. (Doc. 123). As of the date of Collins’

motion for contempt, filed over a year after entry of the Order mandating the investigation, no
documents had been sent to him and he thus requested a finding of contempt in addition to
monetary damages for the Defendants’ non-compliance. (Doc. 124).
On November 1, 2016, the Defendants filed a motion for enlargement of time, in which
they stated that they had indeed timely submitted the documents ordered, however the
submission was not reflected on the docket. (Doc. 127, ¶ 5). The next day, the Defendants filed
a brief in opposition to the instant motion, arguing compliance with the terms of the Order.
(Doc. 129). On November 9, 2016, Judge Kosik issued a Memorandum and Order
acknowledging the timely submission, deeming one of the documents relevant and previously
unprovided to Collins, and ordering that document sent to Collins the same day. (Doc. 132;
Doc. 133; Doc. 134). On April 14, 2017, the case was referred to the undersigned. Having
reviewed Collins’ motion and the subsequent Memorandum and Order by Judge Kosik, this
Court is satisfied that the Defendants complied with the Order of October 7, 2015, and Judge
Kosik’s subsequent in camera review and provision of the documents in question to Collins
negated the basis for Collins’ motion for contempt. As the documents have been provided to
Collins during the pendency of his motion for contempt, Collins’ motion is DENIED AS
MOOT.
Also on October 20, 2016, Collins filed a motion to suppress the deposition taken of him
on April 7, 2015, deeming it inaccurate and in violation of Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. (Doc. 126). Collins has failed to provide a brief in support of his motion, as required
by Local Rule 7.5. Per the terms of this rule, a brief in support is to be filed within 14 days for
any motion except a motion for enlargement of time, a motion which has concurrence of all
parties, or for appointment of counsel. Pa. M.D. L.R. 7.5. Where none of the exceptions
-2-

apply—as is plainly the case here—Local Rule 7.5 requires the Court to deem an unsupported
motion as withdrawn. Pa. M.D. L.R. 7.5. Thus, Collins’ motion is DENIED due to his failure
to adhere to Local Rule 7.5.
Even were the Court to look past this procedural flaw, Collins has not provided any
discussion of the merits sufficient to permit review of his claims. As admitted by Collins, he is
“unable to give any particulars or cite any specific examples” of discrepant testimony and asks
the Court to undertake the role of advocate by reviewing the deposition transcript as a whole
and comparing it to the “original” to find his perceived flaws. (Doc. 126, at 2). It is beyond the
bounds of justice for this Court to conduct Collins’ pre-trial litigation on his behalf. Even if the
Court were able to look past Collins’ failure to adhere to the Local Rules, he has given no basis
for the Court to find in his favor on the merits.
An appropriate Order follows.

s/ Karoline Mehalchick

Dated: June 8, 2017

KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States Magistrate Judge

-3-