Goss v. Stirling et al
Filing
264
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 253 motion to compel as moot and denying Plaintiff's 263 motion for sanctions. Defendant's responses to the discovery requests in complaint with this order are due by January 15, 2021. The parties shall conduct depositions of Plaintiff and his two witnesses by February 22, 2021. Dispositive motions are due by March 26, 2021. (Motions due by 3/26/2021) Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 1/5/2021. (lbak)
1:18-cv-02124-BHH-SVH
Date Filed 01/05/21
Entry Number 264
Page 1 of 12
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 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of his
Eighth Amendment rights against Richard Cothran (“Defendant”), Warden of
Turbeville Correctional Institution (“TCI”), in his individual capacity, for
failure to protect Plaintiff from inmate assaults and the threat of inmate
assaults due to increased gang violence. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges
that during his 16-month incarceration at TCI, beginning September 8, 2016,
Defendant failed to protect him from threats, extortion, and violence by
prison gangs, particularly the Folk Nation, also known as “the Gs.” All
pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e)
(D.S.C.).
1:18-cv-02124-BHH-SVH
Date Filed 01/05/21
Entry Number 264
Page 2 of 12
Plaintiff originally filed this case on August 2, 2018, bringing claims in
his complaint and amended complaint against over twenty-five defendants
concerning prison violence occurring at multiple South Carolina correctional
institutions. [See, e.g., ECF No. 39 at 2]. Discovery has been elaborate and
contentious. For example, Plaintiff originally sought discovery concerning
gang violence at twelve different South Carolina correctional institutions.
[See, e.g., ECF No. 97 at 4]. In an April 4, 2019 order issued by the court,
Plaintiff was allowed discovery concerning only those institutions where he
has been housed, and, as relevant here, the court also limited discovery
sought by Plaintiff concerning a specific riot at TCI that occurred on
December 31, 2017, to “any incident reports or photos related to this riot that
directly involved Plaintiff.” Id. at 5.
On February 20, 2020, the undersigned issued a report and
recommendation, recommending in part the district judge dismiss all of
Plaintiff’s claims except against Defendant for failure to protect him from
prison violence in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights and deny
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to this claim. [ECF No. 191].
Following issuance of the report, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time
to complete discovery, seeking information regarding four correctional officers
who are potential witnesses in this case, a complete copy of the “monthly
management information report” for the time he was incarcerated at TCI, a
2
1:18-cv-02124-BHH-SVH
Date Filed 01/05/21
Entry Number 264
Page 3 of 12
copy of the incident report for the 2017 riot at the prison, and any and all
incident reports from third responders during his time incarcerated at the
prison. [ECF No. 200].
On September 28, 2020, the district judge adopted the report and
recommendation, granted in part Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to
complete discovery, and remanded the matter to the undersigned to
determine the appropriate bounds and time limits for both parties to conduct
additional, limited discovery regarding Plaintiff’s sole remaining claim. [ECF
No. 233 at 10 (“After review, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that some
limited, additional discovery is necessary to ensure that the record is fully
developed and that the parties can effectively prepare for trial . . . . if the
parties’ discovery exposes any information clearly critical to the outcome of
this case, then the parties may move to file additional dispositive motions.”)].
On September 29, 2020, limited discovery was reopened in this case.
[ECF No. 235]. On November 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed his first motion to
compel. [ECF No. 245]. In response, Defendant filed a motion for extension of
time, noting the extensive amount of discovery involved in Plaintiff’s
discovery requests and that court resolution of certain discovery disputes
would likely be needed. [ECF No. 246]. In response to the court’s request,
3
1:18-cv-02124-BHH-SVH
Date Filed 01/05/21
Entry Number 264
Page 4 of 12
Defendant additionally produced a copy of Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery
requests. [ECF Nos. 247, 249].1
On November 30, 2020, the court found as moot Plaintiff’s motion to
compel and granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion for
extension of time, directing Defendant to file all objections to Plaintiff’s
discovery requests and providing Plaintiff with time to respond. [ECF No.
250]. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a second motion to compel [ECF No. 253],
prior to Defendant’s timely-filed objections [ECF No. 254]. Plaintiff then
submitted his responses to Defendant’s objections. [ECF Nos. 255, 262].2
Defendant objects to the following requests for production and all
related interrogatories:
Plaintiff argues the discovery requests produced by Defendant have been
produced out of order and are incomplete. [ECF No. 261]. As submitted by
Defendant, Plaintiff’s first request for production was served on October 5,
2020, [ECF No. 249-2] and Plaintiff’s first request for interrogatories was
served on October 12, 2020, [ECF No. 249-1]. Plaintiff argues that Defendant
failed to include Plaintiff’s second request for production of documents, also
submitted on October 12, 2020. [ECF No. 261]. On January 4, 2021, Plaintiff
filed a motion for sanctions based on these allegations. [ECF No. 263].
Finding no reason to issue sanctions, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is
denied. Defendant has requested the court find Plaintiff’s second motion to
compel moot in that “Defendant will mail a finalized copy of all Discovery
responses and production to the Plaintiff once the Court has determined the
documents relevant to the Plaintiff’s Argument and ordered Defendant to
produce same.” [ECF No. 258 at 1].
2 In Plaintiff’s first reply to Defendant’s objection, Plaintiff states he did not
receive a copy of Defendant’s objections. [ECF No. 255]. In an abundance of
caution, the court mailed a copy of Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff,
extending the deadline for his response. [See ECF Nos. 256, 259]. Plaintiff
then submitted a second reply to Defendant’s objections. [ECF No. 262].
1
4
1:18-cv-02124-BHH-SVH
Date Filed 01/05/21
Entry Number 264
Page 5 of 12
RFP 1: Please produce SCDC’s restricted “Use of Force” policy.
RFP 2: Please produce, any and all incident report from
Turbeville riot that occurred on or about December 9, 2016, in the
Taw Caw Unit, where an inmate assaulted a Correctional Officer
by hitting him multiple times on the head with locks attached to
an extension cord and then took the Officer’s Security keys and
unlocked all of the cell doors.
RFP 3: Please produce, any and all incident reports from the
Turbeville riot that occurred on or about December 31, 2017, in
the Taw Caw Unit, where inmates took a Correctional Officer
hostage. Locked him into a cell. Then took the officer’s security
keys and unlocked all of the cell doors.
RFP 4: Please produce, the monthly management information
report (MIN) of Turbeville from January 2016 through January
2018.
RFP 5: Please produce, any and all use of force (whether planned
or immediate) incident report (MIN) and/or video involving the
use of Specialty Impact Munitions (SIM) that occurred at
Turbeville from January, 2016 through January, 2018.
RFP 6: Please produce, any and all use of force (whether planned
or immediate) incident report (MIN) and/or video involving the
use of Chemical Munitions that occurred at Turbeville from
January, 2016 through January, 2018.
RFP 7: Please produce, any and all use of force (whether planned
or immediate) incident report (MIN) and/or video involving the
use of Special Operations Response Team (SORT) and/or the
Rapid Response Team (RRT) Crowd control) that occurred at
Turbeville from January, 2016 through January, 2018.
[See ECF No. 249-1 (Plaintiff’s IROGs), ECF No. 249-2 (Plaintiff’s RFPs),
ECF No. 254 (Defendant’s objections), ECF No. 255 (Plaintiff’s response),
ECF No. 262 (Plaintiff’s second response)].
5
1:18-cv-02124-BHH-SVH
Date Filed 01/05/21
Entry Number 264
Page 6 of 12
Plaintiff’s RFP 1 seeks the SCDC’s restricted “Use of Force” policy.
Defendant objects to this request because Plaintiff has access to the nonrestricted policies, certain policies are designated restricted upon grounds of
institutional safety and security from dissemination to non-staff, and on the
grounds of relevancy in that “there are no force issues in the current
litigation as framed by the pleadings and orders of this Court.” [ECF No. 254
at 4]. Plaintiff does not address Defendant’s objections. The court finds
Defendant need not respond to Plaintiff’s request concerning the SCDC’s
restricted “Use of Force” policy.
Plaintiff’s RFP 2 concerns an alleged riot that occurred on December 9,
2016 at TCI. As stated by Defendant:
There are no records of a major inmate disturbance with
resulting inmate or staff injury for Dec 9, 2016. A minor incident
did occur on Taw Caw A on December 9, 2016 in which several
inmates jammed the locks on their cells and were able to open
their doors and run around. There are no reports of any inmates
or officers harmed during or prior to this incident. Only two
inmates were restrained and handcuffed for refusing to return to
their cells, other inmates had returned to their appropriate cells
when first and second responders entered the unit. There is no
indication that Inmate Goss #305517 was on this unit at the time
of the incident, as his bed history places him on Taw Caw B in
bed 268B. This Court’s previous Order limits the requests to any
incident reports or photos related to [riots] that directly involve
Plaintiff. (ECF no. 97, page 5). Under the Court’s Order, (ECF no.
97), production is to be made only if the events directly relate to
Inmate Goss. The requested production cannot be located as the
event did not occur as described. Further, the only other event of
that day involved no injuries, did not involve Goss and was not on
his housing unit wing.
6
1:18-cv-02124-BHH-SVH
Date Filed 01/05/21
Entry Number 264
Page 7 of 12
[ECF No. 254 at 5]. In response, Plaintiff does not argue he was involved in
this incident, but instead maintains that a correctional officer was injured,
seeks the name of that officer, and submits an affidavit from the unit
manager for the Taw Caw dorm stating the riot that occurred resulted in
extensive destruction of infrastructure and a lockdown that lasted a period of
weeks. [See ECF No. 262 at 3–5, see also ECF No. 262-1].3
Defendant is directed to produce discovery responsive to Plaintiff’s RFP
2 to the extent the incidents that occurred on or about this day concerned
gang activity at TCI. The April 4, 2019 order referenced by Defendant did not
address incidents occurring on December 9, 2016, although it did address the
December 31, 2017 riot, as discussed more below. [See ECF No. 97 at 5].
Additionally, although Plaintiff may not have been located on the relevant
unit on the day in question, information concerning gang activity on or about
this day at TCI is relevant to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim.4
Plaintiff requests the court return the unit manager’s affidavit “because it’s
his only original copy.” [ECF No. 262 at 3 n.1]. The clerk of the court is
instructed to return this document to Plaintiff, as further directed below.
4 The Eighth Amendment imposes a duty on prison officials “to protect
prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners.” Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). To establish a
claim under the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner must satisfy two elements.
“First, the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, ‘sufficiently serious.’” Id.
at 834 (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, a prisoner
must present evidence that the prison officials had a “‘sufficiently culpable
state of mind.’” Id. (citing Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297). A prison official’s
3
7
1:18-cv-02124-BHH-SVH
Date Filed 01/05/21
Entry Number 264
Page 8 of 12
Plaintiff’s RFP 3 concerns a riot that occurred at TCI on December 31,
2017. Defendant objects as follows:
This December 31, 2017, Inmate Disturbance incident is one of
the cases involving an inmate death revealed in DEFENDANT’S
ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF’S COURT ORDERED REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION wherein responses were provided to
Plaintiff and the responses and attachments were provided for in
camera review to United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon
Baker on June 25, 2019. The Court has previously reviewed the
December 31, 2017 Incident Records of Turbeville Taw Caw B
and it was established that they do not contain any information
pertaining to the Plaintiff, Inmate Darrell Goss #305517 and
would not be provided for his review. See, Affidavits of Service,
(EFC no. 114 and 115).
These documents were and are objected to on several grounds to
include that production is protected as an on-going criminal
prosecution and not relevant as Goss was not involved. On
December 31, 2017, a major inmate disturbance occurred on Taw
Caw Unit, B-Side. An inmate was killed in inmate-on-inmate
violence and prosecutions of those participating in the
disturbance are pending.
This Court’s previous Order frames the window May 2016
through January 2018 for Turbeville, denies the right to
production of confidential information (ECF no. 97, page 6),5 and
subjective actual knowledge can be proven through circumstantial evidence,
for example, that the “substantial risk of inmate attacks was longstanding,
pervasive, well-documented, or expressly noted by prison officials in the past,
and the circumstances suggest that the defendant-official being sued had
been exposed to information concerning the risk and thus ‘must have known’
about it.” Id. at 842; see also, e.g., Makdessi v. Fields, 789 F.3d 126 (4th Cir.
2015).
5 Although the court previously denied Plaintiff’s request for “all records”
related to inmates who have been criminally charged in connection to inmateon-inmate stabbings and inmate-on-staff stabbings as confidential in that
“Plaintiff has not established why he needs the records of other inmates,”
[ECF No. 97 at 6–7], it does not appear that the incident reports currently
8
1:18-cv-02124-BHH-SVH
Date Filed 01/05/21
Entry Number 264
Page 9 of 12
further limits the requests to any incident reports or photos
related to [riots] that directly involve Plaintiff.” (ECF no. 97, page
5). Under the Court’s Order, (ECF no. 97), production is to be
made only if the events directly relate to Inmate Goss. They do
not. According to the inmate bed summary, Inmate Goss was in
Taw Caw A side from 12-14-17 until his transfer 1-16-18 and not
involved in this incident. Inmate Darrell Goss’ name is never
mentioned in the Police Services reports, SLED reports or
Incident reports relating to this incident, nor does SCDC’s file
contain photos of Inmate Goss #305517. Further, Goss’ medical
treatment records in the affidavits before this Court demonstrate
that Inmate Goss neither complained of nor was, he treated for
any injuries after this date at Turbeville Correctional Institution.
[ECF No. 254 at 2, 5–6]. Plaintiff responds that he is entitled to these records
because “he was injured during this riot (i.e., stabbed and beaten) as alleged
throughout his pleadings” and “in order to prove that the risk of harm was
obvious to Warden Cothran due to the ongoing violence/riots at Tuberville.”
[See ECF No. 262 at 5].
As noted by Defendant, the court has previously addressed Plaintiff’s
discovery requests concerning the December 31, 2017 riot, stating “the Court
limits [discovery to be produced by Defendant] to any incident reports or
photos related to this riot that directly involve the Plaintiff.” [ECF No. 97 at
5]. However, the multiple claims, defendants, and discovery requests before
the court when that order was issued is significantly different from the one
claim, one defendant, and more limited discovery requests at issue now.
sought contain this type of confidential information. To the extent these
reports do, as stated above, these reports are to be redacted.
9
1:18-cv-02124-BHH-SVH
Date Filed 01/05/21
Entry Number 264
Page 10 of 12
Because of the unusual procedural posture of this case and the limited
reopening of discovery directed by the district judge, the undersigned directs
Defendant to produce discovery responsive to Plaintiff’s RFP 3 for the same
reasons articulated above concerning Plaintiff’s RFP 2, all redacted as
necessary. Plaintiff’s sole remaining claim concerns his allegation that
Defendant failed to protect him from prison violence while he was housed at
TCI, and, as stated above, a prison official’s subjective actual knowledge can
be proven through circumstantial evidence, for example, that the “substantial
risk of inmate attacks was longstanding, pervasive, well-documented, or
expressly noted by prison officials in the past, and the circumstances suggest
that the defendant-official being sued had been exposed to information
concerning the risk and thus ‘must have known’ about it.” Farmer, 511 U.S.
at 842.
Plaintiff’s RFP 4 seeks management information note systems
(“MINS”) reports for TCI from January 2016 through January 2018. The
undersigned agrees with Defendant that this request is overly broad and
seeks irrelevant information, but disagrees
that the only relevant
information are the MINS reports that directly concern Plaintiff or the unit
he was housed in, for the reasons stated above. [See ECF No. 254 at 6–7].6
Although Plaintiff argues that “the MINS reports does not detail incidents
regarding other inmates or their personal information,” [ECF No. 262 at 6],
6
10
1:18-cv-02124-BHH-SVH
Date Filed 01/05/21
Entry Number 264
Page 11 of 12
Defendant is directed to produce, in response to this RFP, MINS reports
directly involving Plaintiff and the unit where he was housed in addition to
those MINS reports that concern gang activity at TCI, with redactions as
needed, from the time period of May 2016, four months prior to the time
Plaintiff arrived at TCI, through January 2018, when Plaintiff was
transferred to a different institution, to the extent this discovery has not
already been produced.7
Plaintiff, in his RFPs 5–7, seeks TCI’s MINS reports and video evidence
regarding the use of force, the use of specialty impact munitions, the use of
chemical munitions, the use of special operations response teams, and the use
of rapid response teams, from January 2016 through January 2018. Plaintiff
“contends that he is aware of at least seven (7) riots that occurred at
Tuberville during the timeframe that he was there w[h]ere the Special
Defendant notes that by “requesting all Management Information Note
System reports for . . . the period of January 2016 through January 2018,
there are implicated thousands of pages of MINS Reports, which, if allowed,
detail incidents regarding other inmates and would need to be redacted for
classified or protected information regarding other inmates, HIPAA and other
protected information by Counsel,” rendering Plaintiff’s request unduly
burdensome. [ECF No. 254 at 6].
7 The court has previously held Plaintiff entitled to documents “where
Plaintiff was actually housed, during the time periods he was housed there,
including four months prior to the time he arrived at these Institutions.”
[ECF No. 97 at 5–6 (emphasis removed)]. Plaintiff makes no argument as to
why this time frame is currently insufficient.
11
1:18-cv-02124-BHH-SVH
Date Filed 01/05/21
Entry Number 264
Page 12 of 12
Operations Response Team (SORT) and/or the Rapid Response Team (RRT)
was activated.” [ECF No. 262 at 8].
The undersigned agrees with Defendant that these RFPs are overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and seek irrelevant information. [See, e.g., ECF
No. 254 at 7–8 (“there is no search mechanisms in the SCDC database to
isolate the particular type of force requested, each use of force would have to
be identified from the MINS, pulled from the institution and investigation for
the type of force used.”)]. Additionally, these RFPs significantly overlap with
the information requested by Plaintiff in his RFP 4. For these reasons, the
court finds Defendant need not respond to Plaintiff’s RFPs 5–7.
Plaintiff’s second motion to compel is denied as moot. [ECF No. 253].
Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is denied. [ECF No. 263]. The clerk of court is
directed to return by mail the supporting documents provided to the court by
Plaintiff found at ECF No. 262-1. As previously ordered by this court,
Defendant’s responses to the discovery requests in compliance with this order
are due by January 15, 2021. The parties shall conduct depositions of
Plaintiff and his two witnesses by February 22, 2021. Dispositive motions are
due by March 26, 2021.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 5, 2021
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
12
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?