Goss v. Stirling et al

Filing 240

ORDER Plaintiff's 237 motion to conduct discovery is granted in part. Defendant will be allowed to notice the deposition of Manigault and will bear the costs of the deposition. Further, Defendant's request is granted in that Defendant will be allowed to cross-examine Manigault following Plaintiff's examination of Manigault. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 11/2/2020. (mmcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Darrell L. Goss,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Richard Cothran,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

ORDER

Darrell L. Goss (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
brings this action against Richard Cothran (“Cothran”), Warden of Turbeville
Correctional Institution (“TCI”), in his individual capacity, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of his Eighth Amendment rights for the
warden’s failure to protect Plaintiff from inmate assaults and the threat of
inmate assaults due to increased gang violence. 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)(e) (D.S.C.).
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to conduct
discovery upon an inmate, Robert Manigult (“Manigult”), who Plaintiff states
was an eyewitness to the January 16, 2018 assault on Plaintiff that occurred

at TCI. [ECF No. 237]. 1 Plaintiff requests he be allowed to serve
interrogatories or obtain an affidavit from Manigult concerning the events in
question. Id. at 1.
In response, Defendant does not appear to oppose Plaintiff’s motion,
but requests that, if the court grants the motion, for the requested discovery
to be “conducted by deposition to allow Defendants an opportunity to crossexamine the witness and explore relevance to the issues the Court has
allowed additional discovery upon.” [ECF No. 238 at 1]. 2 Defendant states
that Manigault is an inmate within the South Carolina Department of
Corrections and counsel for Defendant can schedule a deposition upon the
Court’s request. Id. at 1. n.1. In reply, Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s request
that Plaintiff characterizes as follows: “Defendants asks the Court to allow
them to first cross-examine plaintiff’s witness through deposition without
allowing plaintiff the opportunity to first examine his own witness.” [ECF No.
239 at 1].

Plaintiff has alleged that he was assaulted while incarcerated in TCI on
December 31, 2017, and January 16, 2018, and that Defendant was warned
by Plaintiff’s mother regarding both instances. [See, e.g., ECF No. 174-5 ¶¶
7–10, ECF No. 233 at 6–7]. Defendant only references the December 2017
event in his response to Plaintiff’s motion. [ECF No. 238 at 1–2]
2 On September 29, 2020, consistent with the order issued by the district
judge, the undersigned issued order reopening limited discovery “solely
concerning Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Cothran
in his individual capacity.” [ECF No. 235; see also ECF No. 233].
1

2

In this somewhat unusual situation, Plaintiff has requested to conduct
discovery on an inmate, but also objects to Defendant’s request that said
discovery be taken via deposition. Although Plaintiff argues Defendant’s
request “would violate the fundamental principles of procedural due process”
and “result in extreme prejudice,” id., the undersigned can discern no
violation of Plaintiff’s rights nor any prejudice that could ensue from the
requested discovery being taken via deposition, particularly given the
constraints ordered by the court below. Defendant retains the ability to
depose Plaintiff’s witnesses, and it appears Defendant’s request streamlines
the discovery process that is scheduled to conclude on November 30, 2020.
[ECF No. 235].
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to conduct discovery [ECF No. 237] is
granted in part. Following Defendant filing a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 30(a)(2)(B), Defendant will be allowed to notice the deposition of Manigault
and will bear the costs of the deposition. Further, Defendant’s request is
granted in that Defendant will be allowed to cross-examine Manigault
following Plaintiff’s examination of Manigault.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 2, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
3