Rouse v. PA Department of Corrections/SCI-Retreat et al
Filing
86
MEMORANDUM - Based on the foregoing, Rouse's motion (Doc. 59) to compel will be denied. A separate Order shall issue.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 7/24/17. (jfg)
I
,
t
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Civil No. 3:13-cv-1BOB
CALVIN ROUSE,
(Judge Mariani)
Plaintiff
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants
MEMORANDUM
Presently before the Court in this civil rights action is a motion to compel discovery
filed by Plaintiff Calvin Rouse ("Rouse"), a former inmate housed at the Retreat State
Correctional Institution, in Hunlock Creek, Pennsylvania, ("SCI-Retreat").1 (Doc. 59). For
the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion.
I.
Standard of Review
A party who has received evasive or incomplete discovery responses may seek a
I
!
I
t
!
t
i
I
i
f
court order compelling disclosure or discovery of the materials sought. See FED. R. CIV. P.
37(a). The moving party must demonstrate the relevance of the information sought to a
particular claim or defense. The burden then shifts to the opposing party, who must
I
t
I
~
~
f
demonstrate in specific terms why a discovery request does not fall within the broad scope
!
I
I
i
In an effort to ascertain the custodial status of Rouse, the Court accessed the Vinelink online
inmate locator, which revealed that he is no longer in custody. See https:llvinelink.com/#/search. See a/so
{Doc. 83).
I
j
of discovery or is otherwise privileged or improper. Goodman v. Wagner, 553 F. Supp. 255,
258 (E.D. Pa. 1982).
Generally, courts afford considerable latitude in discovery in order to ensure that
litigation proceeds with "the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial."
Hickman v. Taylor, 349 U.S. 495,501 (1947). The procedural rule defining the scope and
limits of discovery provides that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the
case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of
the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of
discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable." FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1).
"[A]II relevant material is discoverable unless an applicable evidentiary privilege is asserted.
The presumption that such matter is discoverable, however, is defeasible." Pearson v.
Miller, 211 F.2d 57, 65 (3d Cir. 2000). Furthermore, the court may limit discovery where: U(i)
the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from
some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the
party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in
the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1)."
2
FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(c).
II.
Discussion
In the instant motion to compel discovery, Rouse requests the following: (1) the
property room log book entry from January 3, 2013; (2) a log of inmates who complained
about their property not being shipped with them on January 10, 2013; and, (3) a log of
inmate grievances against Defendants with regard to missing property. (Doc. 59). The
Court will address each request seriatim.
Request Number 1
Rouse requests the property room log book entry from January 3, 2013 to show that
Defendants were not properly following procedure in shipping inmates' property. In
response to this request, Defendants note that Rouse was transferred from SCI-Retreat to
SCI-Graterford on January 10, 2013. Thus, they assert that the property room log book
entry for January 3, 2013 is irrelevant to the instant action.
A review of the exhibits attached to Defendants' brief in opposition to the motion to
compel demonstrates that they have provided Rouse with the relevant log book entry for the
date of his transfer. (Doc. 62-1, p. 15). The Court finds that Defendants have produced the
relevant property room log book entry including the date of Rouse's transfer (i.e, January
10, 2013), and the request for the property room log book entry for January 3, 2013 is
irrelevant to Rouse's claims. Consequently, this request will be denied.
3
t
I
J
Request Number 2
Rouse next requests the log of inmates who complained about their property not
being shipped with them on January 10, 2013. (Doc. 59). Defendants maintain that no
such log exists and they do not have log dedicated to listing names of inmates who
complain about the shipment of their property. (Doc. 62, pp. 3-4). The Court accepts
Defendants' representation that no such document exists.
Additionally, Rouse requests specific information regarding fellow inmate Shakir.
(Doc. 59, p. 2). Rouse states that inmate Shakir was transferred from SCI-Retreat at the
same time as Rouse. (ld.). He requests the log book indicating that Shakir's property was
shipped, and the date Shakir signed for the return of his property. (ld.). The Court notes
that liability under § 1983 is personal in nature, see Sutton v. Rasheed, 323 F.3d 236, 249
(3d Cir. 2003), and the only documents relevant to the claims asserted in this action are
those documents related to complaints made by Rouse against the Defendants. Rouse has
not indicated how the records are relevant to his claims as inmate Shakir is not a party to
this action. Moreover, inmates are prohibited from possessing documents that pertain to
fellow inmates. See (Doc. 62-1, p. 11). The Department of Corrections is prohibited by
DC-ADM 0032 from releasing inmate information to other inmates. See Sloan v. Murray,
2013 WL 5551162 (M.D. Pa. 2013) (denying plaintiff's motion to compel grievance
DC-ADM 003 IV.A.S, Release of Information, provides that "[a]n inmate is prohibited from
receiving inmate information pertaining to another inmate other than him/herself,"
2
4
)
f
1
responses related to other inmates, and noting that DOC Policy DC-ADM 003 prohibits an
inmate from receiving information about another inmate). In addition, beyond the obvious
\
privacy concerns surrounding releasing information about other inmates, the release of
I
complaints or grievances filed by other inmates may subject those inmates to harassment
f
1
I
or retaliation. Rouse has failed to sustain his burden of proving the relevance of this
requested information and he is prohibited by DC-ADM 003 from obtaining a complaint or
[
t
I
,
f
t
grievance related to another inmate. Therefore, the Court will deny this request.
I
f
Request Number 3
I
I
Lastly, Rouse requests a log of inmate complaints against Defendants with regard to
f
i
I
missing property. (Doc. 59). Defendants assert that the Department does not maintain a
I
I
record of complaints and grievances sorted by employee name. (Doc. 62, pp. 4-5).
t
Therefore, they argue that this request is overly broad and would cause undue burden and
expense to identify and produce any such grievances because it would require individually
reviewing grievances submitted by all inmates. (ld.).
I
~
J
!
I
I
!
The Court finds that this request is overly broad and would cause undue burden and
expense. Notably, Rouse fails to provide a date range for the requested documents.
Additionally, as stated above, Rouse is not entitled complaints or grievances of fellow
inmates. Therefore, the Court will deny Rouse's general request for all complaints, filed by
any and all inmates, against Defendants regarding missing property.
5
\
f
t
f
I
III.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Rouse's motion (Doc. 59) to compel will be denied. A
separate Order shall issue.
Date: July
4.
2017
Robert D. M lani
United States District Judge
I
I
t
I
~
t
I
t
I
I
f
I
f
J
I
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?