Robinson v. Morgan

Filing 36

ORDER denying 24 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; denying 24 Motion to Compel; denying 28 Motion to Compel; denying 35 Motion for Hearing; denying 35 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 10/8/2014.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Anthony Q. Robinson,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Nikon Morgan,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:14-760-RBH-SVH

ORDER

Plaintiff Anthony Q. Robinson, proceeding pro se, brought this action alleging that
Nikon Morgan (“Defendant”) used excessive force against him in violation of his
constitutional rights. This matter comes before the court on the following motions: (1)
Plaintiff’s motion to compel and for an extension of time to complete discovery [Entry
#24]; (2) Plaintiff’s motion to compel [Entry #28]; and (3) Plaintiff’s motion for a pretrial
conference and for appointment counsel [Entry #35]. All pretrial proceedings in this case
were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.).
I.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel and for an extension of time to complete discovery
In his motion to compel filed May 9, 2014, Plaintiff seeks to compel complete

responses to his requests to Defendant for copies of (1) documents related to correctional
officer training in use of force, (2) SCDC use of force policy, and (3) SCDC policy and
procedure for escorting inmates from their room. [Entry #24]. Plaintiff contends that he
needs this information because it is relevant to his excessive use of force claim. Id.
Plaintiff asks for an extension of discovery to allow him to obtain these items or that the

court order Defendant to answer the identified interrogatories and requests for
production. Id.
The requested documents are not relevant to whether Defendant violated
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by the use of excessive force. Assuming, arguendo, that
Defendant violated SCDC policies and procedures, Plaintiff must still show that
Defendant violated his constitutional rights. See United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741
(1978); see also Johnson v. S.C. Dep’t of Corrections, No. 06–2062, 2007 WL 904826 at
*12 (D.S.C. Mar. 21, 2007) (“Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants did not follow their
own policies fails, as the failure of prison officials to follow their own policies or
procedures, standing alone, does not amount to a constitutional violation.”) (citing Riccio
v. County of Fairfax, Virginia, 907 F.2d 1459, 1469 (4th Cir. 1990)). Because Plaintiff
has not shown that he is entitled to the requested information, the undersigned denies his
motion to compel and motion for extension of time to complete discovery.
II.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel
In his motion to compel filed June 2, 2014, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant to

answer interrogatories 10 and 14, to which the Defendant objected. [Entry #28]. Plaintiff
does not attach a copy of Defendant’s responses to the interrogatories or explain why
Defendant’s response was insufficient. Because Plaintiff has failed to provide any
arguments regarding the alleged insufficiency of Defendant’s responses to discovery, his
motion to compel [Entry #28] is denied.
III.

Plaintiff’s motion for a pretrial conference and to appoint counsel
In his motion for a pretrial conference and appointment of counsel, Plaintiff
2

provides no basis for either of his requests. [Entry #35]. The undersigned has reviewed
the docket and finds that a pretrial conference is unnecessary at this time. Plaintiff’s
motion to appoint counsel is denied because Plaintiff is not entitled to a discretionary
appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), as explained in more detail in the
undersigned’s March 28, 2014, order [Entry #18] denying Plaintiff’s prior request for an
appointment of counsel.
IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned denies (1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel

and for an extension of time to complete discovery [Entry #24]; (2) Plaintiff’s motion to
compel [Entry #28]; and (3) Plaintiff’s motion for a pretrial conference and motion to
appoint counsel [Entry #35].
IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 8, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

3