Williams v. Lynch et al

Filing 137

ORDER denying 129 MOTION for Extension of Time, denying 130 MOTION for Reconsideration, and denying 131 MOTION to Stay, to the extent that they request he be allowed to conduct discovery outside of the scheduling o rder. To the extent 131 MOTION to Stay requests limited additional time to respond to Defendants' motion, it is granted. Plaintiff's deadline to substantively respond to 113 Motion to Dismiss is now April 5, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 3/6/2018. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Anthony D. Williams, #14113-112,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Ms. Loretta Lynch, Attorney General;
)
Mr. Travis Bragg, C.E.O. Warden; Ian
)
Connor, National Inmate Appeal
)
Coordinator; M. Holliday, Chief
)
Dietitian; M. Furman, Associate
)
Warden; P. Kelly, Associate Warden;
)
Mr. Hicks, Institutional Captain; S.K.
)
Brosier, Admin Remedy Coordinator;
)
Mr. Rich, CMC Coordinator; T.
)
Whitehead, Unit Manager; J. Ackerman, )
Case Manager; Mrs. Roberts, Case
)
Manager; Mrs. Bennett, Secretary; Ms.
)
Prince, Correctional Officer; J. Onuoha; )
Mr. Padilla, Food Service
)
Administrator; John/Jane Doe,
)
Designation and Sentence Computation )
Unit Team; Ms. Murberry; United States )
of America; Mr. Cox; Mr. Parra; Mr.
)
Davis, Unit Manager; and Mr.
)
Rodriguez,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

C/A No.: 1:16-3043-DCC-SVH

ORDER

Anthony D. Williams (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
brings this action alleging a violation of his constitutional rights while at the Federal
Correctional Institution located in Bennettsville, South Carolina. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment, on November 6, 2017.
[ECF No. 113]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to

Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on November 6, 2017, advising him
of the importance of the motion to dismiss and of the need for him to file an adequate
response by December 8, 2017. [ECF No. 114].
On December 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a document that was titled “Plaintiff’s
Response in Opposition,” but which did not address any of the substantive arguments of
Defendants. [ECF No. 128]. The document instead alleged that Plaintiff needed
discovery, that he was transferred to another institution in retaliation, and that he needed
additional time to respond to Defendants’ motion. Id. During the first week of December,
Plaintiff also filed the following motions, all of which restate the same arguments: (1)
Plaintiff’s motion for an extension and continuance [ECF No. 129]; (2) Plaintiff’s motion
for reconsideration of the undersigned’s prior order denying his request for counsel and
for additional time to conduct discovery [ECF No. 130]; and (3) Plaintiff’s motion to stay
all proceedings [ECF No. 131].
All of Plaintiff’s pending motions seek the same result—that the court grant him
additional time to conduct discovery and that he then be permitted to respond to
Defendants’ motion. The undersigned has reviewed the proposed discovery topics, see
ECF No. 129 at 5, and does not believe that the discovery is necessary for Plaintiff to
respond to Defendants’ motion. For instance, while much of the proposed discovery
seeks policies of the Bureau of Prisons and its individual institutions on a variety of
topics, the law is clear that violations of internal policies in and of themselves do not rise
to a constitutional violation. See, e.g., Thompson v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444, 455
(7th Cir. 2006) (“Whether [an officer’s] conduct conformed with the internal [police
2

department general orders] concerning the use of force on an assailant was irrelevant to
the jury’s determination of whether his actions . . . were ‘objectively reasonable’ under
the Fourth Amendment.”); see also Green v. Kirkland, No. 1:14-cv-2225-MGL-SVH,
2015 WL 1268320 (4th Cir. Mar. 19, 2015) (“Whether Defendants’ actions were
compliant with their internal policies is not relevant to whether their actions were
unconstitutional. Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to the use of force policy.”). In
addition, Plaintiff is not entitled to the identities of other prisoners filing grievances for
similar conduct of that alleged in the complaint, as such information is not relevant to his
claims. Finally, while Plaintiff has not shown he is entitled to his medical records since
2009 as he requests [ECF No. 129 at 5], Defendants have provided over 300 pages of his
relevant medical records as an exhibit to their motion [ECF No. 113-16].
Plaintiff’s motions [ECF Nos. 129, 130, 131] are denied to the extent that they
request he be allowed to conduct discovery outside of the scheduling order. In addition to
the reasons outlined in the undersigned’s previous orders, Plaintiff has not shown that the
requested discovery is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b).
Defendants’ motion has been pending for five months and Plaintiff has failed to
substantively respond to the motion. To the extent ECF No. 131 requests limited
additional time to respond to Defendants’ motion, it is granted. Plaintiff’s deadline to
substantively respond to the motion is now April 5, 2018. Plaintiff is advised that no
further extensions will be granted and if he fails to substantively respond, the
undersigned will rule on the record before the court.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 6, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

4