Williams v. Lynch et al
ORDER denying 143 MOTION for Reconsideration and denying 145 MOTION for Legal Mail to be Certified. Defendants are ordered to mail Plaintiff an additional copy of ECF No. 113 . Plaintiffs deadline to file a response remains May 26, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 4/11/2018. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Anthony D. Williams, #14113-112,
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.
C/A No.: 1:16-3043-DCC-SVH
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. He has since been
transferred to other institutions and is currently housed at Federal Medical Center–
Devens. 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 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.
On March 6, 2018, the court issued an order denying Plaintiff additional time for
discovery and noting that the discovery he requested was not necessary to respond to
Defendants’ motion. [ECF No. 137]. This matter comes before the court on the following
motions by Plaintiff: (1) motion for reconsideration of Plaintiff’s past motions [ECF No.
143]; (2) motion for an additional copy of Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 144];
and, (3) motion for all correspondence to be sent by certified mail [ECF No. 145].
Motion for Reconsideration
In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff recounts the same arguments he has
repeatedly made in this court, about why he believes he needs discovery before he can
respond to Defendants’ motion. He first argues that he needs sworn affidavits from other
inmates. However, that is not information he can request from Defendants. In addition,
the court does not make credibility determinations on a motion for summary judgment;
therefore, at this stage, Plaintiff does not need multiple affidavits to corroborate his own
sworn statement. Additionally, to the extent he seeks information about allegedly
unconstitutional conditions prior to his alleged injuries, such information is not relevant
to Plaintiff’s causes of action.
Plaintiff also claims he needs all medical records, “not just the medical records
that benefit the Defendants.” There is no evidence that Defendants have selected specific
medical records, but instead have provided Plaintiff’s full BOP medical records while at
FCI-Bennetsville. [ECF No. 113-16]. In fact, Defendants have attached a particularly
voluminous set of medical records. Although Plaintiff states that he needs hospitalization
records, it is not clear that Defendants have copies of all of these records. Plaintiff may
state in an affidavit what he believes the medical records will show and attach it to his
response to Defendants’ motion.
Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks a reconsideration of the court’s denial of
his motion to appoint counsel, he has not shown any change in circumstance. Plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration [ECF No. 143] is denied.
Motion for a Copy of Defendants’ Motion
Plaintiff claims that employees of the Bureau of Prisons intentionally damaged or
destroyed part of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 144]. Plaintiff
has not shown why he has not been able to determine how much of Defendants’ motion
he is missing since he received it on March 20, 2018. In the interest of time, the
undersigned orders Defendants to mail Plaintiff an additional copy of ECF No. 113.
However, Plaintiff is advised that he should be working on his response immediately with
the materials he has, as by his own statements it appears that he is equally to blame for
any delay in responding. Plaintiff’s deadline to file a response remains May 26, 2018, as
the court has already provided Plaintiff with numerous generous extensions, and he has
had access to his legal materials since March 20, 2018.
Motion for Legal Mail to be Certified
Plaintiff requests that all of his mail be sent by certified mail, as he claims he does
not timely receive his mail. Plaintiff has cited no authority for such a requirement.
Plaintiff’s motion to have all of his legal mail certified [ECF No. 145] is therefore denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 11, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?