BOND v. HORNE et al

Filing 87

ORDER denying without prejudice 84 Motion for Leave of Court Directing DOC Defendants and/or the DOC To Allow Inmate Correspondence. The motion is denied without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a motion that explicitly states inmate Houser's involvement in this lawsuit and affirmatively states that inmate Houser will be called as a witness in this lawsuit. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 09/16/2014. (bsc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JESSE DERRICK BOND,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID HORNE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2: 11-cv-1342
United States Magistrate Judge
Cynthia Reed Eddy

ORDER
Plaintiff, Jesse Derrick Bond, an inmate currently housed at SCI-Graterford, has filed a
Motion for Leave of Court Directing D.O.C. Defendants and/or the D.O.C. to Allow Inmate
Correspondence (ECF No. 84), to which Defendants have filed a Response (ECF No. 85).
Specifically, Plaintiff has requested permission to correspond with inmate Darien Houser, who is
currently housed at SCI-Greene. Plaintiff’s motion indicates that on August 6, 2014, officials
from SCI-Greene denied Plaintiff’s request for “lack of staff support.” See ECF No. 84-1.
Defendants filed a response which does not offer opposition to Plaintiff's motion, but
rather explains that defense counsel has been advised by officials at SCI-Greene that Plaintiff’s
request to communicate with inmate Houser was denied because Plaintiff’s request lacked
justification indicating Houser’s actual involvement in this lawsuit and also because SCI-Greene
officials could not determine whether inmate Houser would be called as a witness in this lawsuit
(ECF No. 85 at ¶ 4).
The Court recognizes that Plaintiff has a legitimate interest in communicating with
potential witnesses in this case. However, Plaintiff's motion does not indicate precisely inmate
Houser’s involvement in the current lawsuit.
1

There is a well-established policy of

noninterference by the courts in the day-to-day operations of prisons, especially when those
operations relate to institutional security. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974); see
also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547–48 (1979). As such, this Court will not issue an order
granting Plaintiff carte blanche to communicate with inmate Houser. Consequently, Plaintiff’s
motion will be denied without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a motion that explicitly states inmate
Houser’s involvement in this lawsuit and affirmatively states that inmate Houser will be called as
a witness in this lawsuit.1
So ORDERED this 16th day of September, 2014.

s/ Cynthia Reed Eddy________
Cynthia Reed Eddy
United States Magistrate Judge
cc:

JESSE DERRICK BOND
BZ-2493
Box 244
Graterford, PA 19426-0244
(via First Class Mail)
Robert A. Willig
Office of Attorney General
(via CM/ECF electronic transmission)

1

If such a motion were to be granted, Plaintiff's correspondence with inmate Houser would be
subject to the supervision of the Department of Corrections, pursuant to its established security
procedures. Additionally, this Court refers Plaintiff to DC–ADM 803 § 1 ¶ 4, which addresses
the issue of correspondence between inmates.
2