Goss v. Stirling et al

Filing 135

ORDER mooting 116 MOTION for Sanctions, denying 121 MOTION for Sanctions MOTION for Discovery and denying 130 MOTION for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 8/15/2019. (lbak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Darrell L. Goss,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Bryan P. Stirling; Charles
Williams; Joel Anderson; Aaron
Joyner; Michael Stephen; Scott
Lewis; Willie Davis; Richard
Cothran; Levern Cohen; Donnie E.
Stonebreaker; Terrie Wallace;
Gary Lane; John Pate; Patricia
Yeldell,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:18-2124-BHH-SVH

ORDER

Darrell L. Goss (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed this action alleging increased violence in 13 institutions of the South
Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) resulting from an influx of
gang members, prison overcrowding, and understaffing. [ECF No. 1]. This
matter comes before the court on Plaintiff’s motions (1) for sanctions [ECF
No. 116]; (2) for sanctions and to conduct additional discovery [ECF No. 121];
and (3) for continuous discovery [ECF No. 130]. This matter is referred to the
undersigned for all pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),
and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). For the foregoing reasons, the
undersigned denies Plaintiff’s motions.

Plaintiff originally listed 27 proposed plaintiffs, but only he signed the
complaint. On August 6, 2018, the Honorable Mary Gordon Baker, United
States Magistrate Judge,1 issued an order noting the Clerk of Court had
properly listed only Plaintiff on the docket, as pro se parties may not
represent the right of others. [ECF No. 7].
On April 4, 2019, Judge Baker granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiff’s second motion to compel. [ECF No. 97]. Specifically, Judge Baker
found Plaintiff was entitled, subject to certain limitations, to the information
requested in his Second Requests for Production Nos. 1–6 and Third Requests
for Production No. 6. The requests, as modified by Judge Baker, include
pictures of all homemade weapons at six SCDC institutions and videos and
incident reports of any inmate assaults at the six institutions.
On June 25, 2019, Defendants served Plaintiff with written responses
to his requests for production on Plaintiff and submitted the responsive
documents to the court for in camera review. Specifically, the written
responses note that providing Plaintiff with the voluminous documents poses
a security risk. Defendants note that Plaintiff was convicted of institutional
charges of “Assault on an Inmate with a Weapon with Intent to Injure/Kill”
arising out of a January 2018 attack on two unarmed inmates. [ECF No. 122

This matter was reassigned to the undersigned on July 26, 2019, for reasons
unrelated to this case.
1

2

at 5–6]. Therefore, Defendants argue that providing Plaintiff “photographs of
other inmates’ successful attempts at turning various pieces of the
infrastructure of institutions into weapons is a security risk. . . .” However,
the responses provide Plaintiff with the numbers of homemade weapons
found at the institutions within the parameters set by Judge Baker. In
response to a request for videos and incident reports of attacks, Defendants
provided the court the responsive documents in camera, but provided
Plaintiff only with the statistics of such events. In each instance, with the
exception of a stabbing of which Plaintiff was one of two assaulting inmates,
Defendants note that Plaintiff was not involved in the incident.
Plaintiff’s first motion for sanctions, dated June 28, 2019, indicates he
had not received discovery responses from Defendants. [ECF No. 116].
However, it appears that they may have been delayed in the mail, as he filed
a more substantive motion for sanctions a few days later. The undersigned
therefore finds as moot Plaintiff’s July 2, 2019 motion for sanctions.2
In his second motion for sanctions and discovery, Plaintiff argues
defense counsel is intentionally attempting to mislead him and the court
because the numbers Defendants provided for Turbeville Correctional

The motion also alleges defense counsel advised him SCDC may move him
out of state in retaliation for filing lawsuits. [ECF No. 116]. Defense counsel
denies having advised Plaintiff he may be moved out of state. [ECF No. 122
at 14]. As Plaintiff remains in SCDC custody in South Carolina, the issue is
not properly before the court.
2

3

Institution (“TCI”) in this case do not match the numbers provided in
discovery in a state court case he has pending against TCI defendants. [ECF
No. 121]. Given that defense counsel is the same in both cases, it is not clear
why Plaintiff believes any discrepancy is intentional, as Plaintiff was
provided with both sets of information. In any event, Defendants explained
that (1) the discrepancies only involved a few incidents, as Plaintiff was
counting some of the months not at issue in this case and (2) the discrepancy
caused by a difference in the characterization of incidents in which an inmate
used an unconventional weapon (i.e. bodily fluids or a chair) are
characterized differently. [ECF No. 127]. Plaintiff filed no reply disputing
Defendants’ explanation.
Plaintiff

also

argues

Defendants

improperly

failed

to

provide

information relating to the December 31, 2017 riot at TCI. Judge Baker
specifically limited this request to “any incident reports or photos related to
this riot that directly involve Plaintiff.” [ECF No. 97 at 5]. Defendants
responded they do not have any incident reports or photos directly related to
Plaintiff from the December 31, 2017 incident. Therefore, even if Plaintiff
was “involved” in the riot as he alleges, Defendants do not have any
documents responsive to his request, as narrowed by Judge Baker. The
undersigned

denies

Plaintiff’s

July

11,

2019

motion

for

sanctions.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s request to conduct additional discovery, including the
4

monthly management information reports from each institution, is denied, as
he has already conducted broad discovery subject to his claims.
Plaintiff also requests “an order granting him on-going discovery until
trial.” [ECF No. 130]. Plaintiff claims he needs additional discovery because
gang-related stabbings continue to occur at SCDC’s prisons state-wide. Id.
However, Plaintiff does not indicate these incidents affected him in any way,
and the court notes he is placed in Lieber Correctional Institution’s
Restorative Unit. [ECF No. 122 at 13]. Plaintiff is reminded he may not
represent the interests of other prisoners and this case concerns only whether
his constitutional rights were violated. While Plaintiff has cited to cases such
as Shrader v. White, 761 F.2d 975 (4th Cir. 1985), in arguing he is entitled to
broad discovery at all SCDC institutions, the undersigned notes that Shrader
was a class action case involving multiple plaintiffs. Additionally, Shrader
was issued 34 years ago before the enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, which may affect the viability of his claims. Plaintiff’s
motion for further or continuous discovery is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 15, 2019
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

5