Addison v. Moore

Filing 45

ORDER denying 32 MOTION to Produce filed by Kelvin Sharod Addison; denying 39 MOTION to Compel filed by Kelvin Sharod Addison; and granting 33 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Steven Moore. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 8/25/2015. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Kelvin Sharod Addison,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Corporal Steven Moore,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:15-571-SB-SVH

ORDER

Kelvin Sharod Addison (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional
rights by Corporal Steven Moore (“Defendant”). This matter comes before the court on
Plaintiff’s motions to produce [ECF No. 32] and to compel [ECF No. 39] and on
Defendant’s motion to compel [ECF No. 33].
I.

Plaintiff’s Motions to Produce and to Compel
Plaintiff filed a motion to produce on June 24, 2015 [ECF No. 32], requesting

information and documents from Defendant. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and 34,
interrogatories and requests for production need not be filed with the court. Plaintiff’s
motion to produce is, therefore, denied.
Defendant construed Plaintiff’s motion to produce as discovery requests and
served responses to the requests on July 22, 2015 [ECF No. 44-2], and supplemental
responses on August 24, 2015 [ECF No. 44-3]. Defendant provided responsive
documents or answers to Requests 1, 2, 5, 8, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19 [ECF No. 44-2] and
supplemented answers to Requests 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, and 14 [ECF No. 44-3]. Plaintiff

appears to request additional information, but fails to provide argument as to why he
believes the information provided by Defendant was insufficient. For example, Defendant
responded to Request 2, which sought statements of witnesses, by producing statements
of Defendant and Sgt. Lippe. [ECF No. 44-2 at 2]. Plaintiff does not acknowledge that
Defendant responded to the request and asks for an affidavit from Defendant if no such
witness statements exist. [ECF No. 39 at 2].
Defendant responded that he does not have documents responsive to Request 9
[ECF No. 44 at 2; 44-2 at 5]. Requests 10–13 seek information that is more akin to legal
analysis, which is not a matter for discovery. Defendant has specified that he does not
have documents responsive to Request 14–15. [ECF No. 44 at 3; 44-2 at 6–7]. Request 17
seeks all documentation related to allegations of unreasonable force at Kershaw
Correctional Institution since January 2013. Plaintiff has not shown how such
information is relevant to whether Defendant used excessive force against him in the
instant case. Plaintiff seeks a copy of the South Carolina Department of Corrections’ use
of force policy in Request 18, and Defendant argues producing such policy creates a
security risk. Plaintiff argues he needs the policy to show Defendant did not correctly
complete the report on the use of force in the instant case. Whether Defendant correctly
complied with SCDC’s use of force policy is not relevant to whether he used excessive
force in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Keeler v. Pea, 782 F. Supp. 42,
44 (D.S.C. 1992) (holding violations of prison policies that fail to reach the level of a
constitutional violation are not actionable under § 1983). Because Plaintiff has failed to
show that Defendant withheld documents or information to which he is entitled, the
2

undersigned denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel [ECF No. 39].
II.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel
Defendant filed his motion to compel on June 26, 2015. [ECF No. 33]. Defendant

states he served his First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production on Plaintiff on
May 19, 2015, and Plaintiff has failed to respond to the requests. Id. Plaintiff failed to file
a response to Defendant’s motion to compel. Therefore, Defendant’s motion to compel is
granted and Plaintiff is directed to respond to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and
Request for Production by September 8, 2015.
III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to produce [ECF No. 32] and motion

to compel [ECF No. 39] are denied and Defendant’s motion to compel [ECF No. 33] is
granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 25, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

3