BRACEY v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

Filing 79

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re 47 outstanding issues with regard to Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by COREY BRACEY, ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 3/14/2012. A copy of the Opinion and Order have been mailed to Plaintiff at his address of record on March 14, 2011, via regular mail. (ndf )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
COREY BRACEY,

)
)
)
vs.
)
)
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
)
CORRECTIONS ; Superintendent
)
HARLOW; Deputy HALL; Deputy
)
BRYANT; Major GILLMORE; Major
)
SUTTER; Captain WHITE; Captain
)
FRONZ; Captain MORROW; Lieutenant )
DEAL; Sergeant WOLFE; Correction
)
Officer STAFFORD; MAXINE OVERTON;)
Dr. ROMAN; MENTAL HEALTH
)
MANAGEMENT; WILLIAM WOODS;
)
JOE BROWNLEE; E. BROWNLEE, GR- )
9693; Correction Officer HARMON;
)
Lieutenant IRWIN; and Sergeant RUFF,
)
)
Defendants. )
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 11-4 E
District Judge Sean J. McLaughlin
Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly

OPINION AND ORDER

In accordance with this Court’s Opinion and Order dated December 21, 2011, and the
Order of Court dated January 24, 2012, as to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel at ECF No. 47,
Defendants have produced documents to the Court for in camera inspection. First, Defendants
have produced DC-121(Part 2) “incident report packages” related to “fights and assaults” in the
Restricted Housing Unit (“RHU”) exercise yards at the State Corrections Institution at Albion,
Pennsylvania (“SCI-Albion”) for the two years preceding September 14, 2010, the date Plaintiff
was first assaulted in an RHU exercise yard. Second, Defendants have produced daily records of
all staff assigned to work in the RHU Unit for the same two year period. Plaintiff seeks this
information to support his claim that officials at SCI-Albion were deliberately indifferent to a
1

substantial risk of harm presented by the breach of security procedures with regard to exercise
yard operation and cell searches.
After reviewing the documents produced for in camera inspection, the Court finds that
for the two years leading up to Plaintiff’s initial assault, there were a total of nine (9) incidents of
inmate assaults in the RHU exercise yards. All nine incidents occurred in exercise yards where
two inmates had been placed for exercise. Four incidents occurred during the process of
removing handcuffs from the two inmates sharing a yard, after one inmate’s hands had been
freed, and one inmate remained restrained. One incident involved a threat to “cut” another
inmate, but no weapon was ever located. The remaining four incidents occurred while two
unrestrained inmates shared a yard. With the exception of the single incident where a threat to
cut an inmate was made, none of the remaining eight incidents involved a weapon. The inmate
identified by Plaintiff as his assailant is not listed as involved in any of the nine incidents.
Likewise, with regard to Plaintiff’s assault on September 14, 2010, none of the guards identified
by him as facilitating his assault are listed as immediately involved in any of the incidents. With
regard to Plaintiff’s second alleged assault on February 2, 2011, one of the identified guards was
previously involved in one of the nine incidents and another guard was identified as a responding
officer in three incidents.
The DC-121 (Part 2) reports that Plaintiff seeks to have produced set forth detailed
information identifying the inmates involved in each altercation, the crimes for which they are
incarcerated, minimum and maximum release dates, injuries and medical treatment resulting
from the altercation, a list of involved personnel, resulting disciplinary proceedings, as well as a
brief synopsis of the event. Pictures of the inmates, Medical Incident/Injury Reports, their
injuries and the written statements of each officer involved in the incident are also attached.

2

For purposes of this case, it is clear that much of the information contained in the reports
and attached thereto is not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. The reports also contain nondiscoverable privileged and confidential information regarding the identified inmates. However,
the synopsis of the incident, including the date and time of the assault, the nature of the assault,
as well as the identities of the responding staff members may provide information relevant to
Plaintiff’s claims.1 Accordingly, the Court finds that the nine DC-121 (Part 2) reports, redacted
so that all inmate identifying information is removed, and omitting the individual statements,
disciplinary proceedings, photos and other attachments, shall be provided to Plaintiff within
thirty (30) days of this Order.
Defendants have also produced for in camera review the employee staffing records for
the RHU for the two year period leading up to the initial assault of Plaintiff. He contends that
these records will establish violations of Department of Corrections’ policies limiting
assignments to an RHU to two years. Plaintiff’s theory is that Defendants have been deliberately
indifferent to his security because officers assigned to the RHU beyond two years become too at
ease or comfortable with certain inmates, and discount the risks presented by the inmates placed
in a restricted environment. Plaintiff further contends that because of this false sense of comfort,
the unit officers failed to follow procedures regarding cell searches, and weapons were permitted
to flow freely within the RHU unit. However, the relevance of the staffing reports is quite
attenuated given the fact that only one prior assault in the two years leading up to Plaintiff’s
incident may have involved a weapon. Further, only two of the officers identified in the nine
incident reports have been identified by Plaintiff as operating the exercise yard on February 2,
2011, and none were identified as involved in Plaintiff’s September 10, 2010 incident. It is
unlikely, therefore, that the production of these materials would lead to relevant information.
1

See, e.g., Robinson v. Johnson, 449 F. App’x 205 (3d Cir. 2011).

3

The staffing reports also contain privileged information including detailed personnel
assignments within the RHU unit at SCI-Albion, listing the number of officers assigned to each
post within the facility. Release of this information would clearly impede security operations at
SCI-Albion. At this time, given the limited number of prior RHU assaults, coupled with the fact
that only one may have involved a weapon, the records shall not be produced as the relevance of
the documents is clearly outweighed by the apparent security concerns. Should this case survive
a Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff may renew his request for production of the
documents. Accordingly,
ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of March, 2012, with regard to the outstanding issues related to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery [ECF No. 47], IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel production of “incident report packages” related to

“fights and assaults” in the Restricted Housing Unit exercise yards at SCI-Albion for the two
years preceding September 14, 2010, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Defendants are to produce the nine identified DC-121 (Part 2) reports as redacted in accordance
with the above Opinion no later than April 4, 2012; and
2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel production of daily records of staff assignments in

the Restricted Housing Unit at SCI-Albion for the two years preceding September 14, 2010, is
DENIED without prejudice.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rule 72.C.2 of
the Local Rules of Court, the parties are allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to

4

file an appeal to the District Judge which includes the basis for objection to this Order. Failure
to file a timely appeal will constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.

BY THE COURT,
/s/ Maureen P. Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
cc:

Corey Bracey
GS-4754
SCI Smithfield
Box 999, 1120 Pike Street
Huntingdon, PA 16652
All counsel of record via CM/ECF

5