Dawson v. Loving

Filing 29

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 05/21/2015.(dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
) C/A No. 4:14-3428-DCN-TER
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
ORDER
)
Officer Timothy Loving, in his official capacity,
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________________ )
)
William Douglas Dawson, Jr., #248371,

Presently before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (doc. #25).1 Defendant filed a
response in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion. (Doc. #27). All pretrial proceedings in this case were
referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), DSC.

Request No. 1:2

Copies of Investigations on the Defendant-These
reports are reasonable request for Discovery by a pro
se Plaintiff that will lead to admissible evidence that
would be used at trial.

Response to Motion:

The Defendant asserts that this incident should be
judged by the actions of the parties on October 8,
2013. The disclosure of investigations on the
Defendant Loving, if any, would not provide any
information that is admissible in this case or that is
likely to lead to admissible evidence. In addition, this

1

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was escorted from the sick cell to his regular cell
by Defendant. Plaintiff contends that he was secured with handcuffs, leg irons, and a lead chain
attached to his right wrist. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant jerked on the lead chain causing injury
to his right wrist.
2

For purposes of this order, Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents will be
addressed as “RFP” followed by the appropriate numerical requests.

type information would create security issues as
Officer Loving continues to work and, if any other
investigations exist, would also provide information
concerning other inmates. The Defendant requests
that Plaintiff’s motion be denied on this issue.
Plaintiff’s motion is granted, and Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff within ten (10) days
investigation reports, if any, regarding allegations of excessive force by Defendant Loving for years
2012-2014. Defendant may seek reconsideration of this ruling within ten (10) days of the date of this
Order if there are particular security concerns in producing the investigation reports. Otherwise,
Defendant is directed to produce the investigation reports on Defendant Loving within ten (10) days
from the date of this order.

Request No. 2:

Use of Force reports on the Defendant while
employment within SCDC. This information will help
establish a pattern by this office that in the past he has
committed like or similar offenses against prisoners.

Response to Motion:

Plaintiff has not alleged any prior history with Officer
Loving or that Officer Loving has engaged in a
pattern of using excessive force. Plaintiff alleges that
Officer Loving used too much force on the lead chain,
a statement which is highly subjective. Plaintiff does
not allege that he was struck by Officer Loving and
does not make any other allegations of excessive
force in this incident. In addition, officers within the
Special Management Unit escort inmates daily while
restrained. The Report on the Use of Force from this
incident prepared by Officer Loving states that he
“escorted I/M Dawson, William, #248371 to C-Y-8
from the medical room by placing my left hand under
I/M’s right shoulder and my right hand on I/M’s right
forearm. I/M was escorted by myself and Sergeant
Wright.” Anytime an inmate is escorted in this
manner a Use of Force Report is made. Any time
chemical munitions are utilized, a Use of Force
Report is made. Any time an officer is a member of a
2

Force Cell Movement Team, a Report on the Use of
Force is made, even if the officer does not touch the
inmate during the use of force.
This case will be decided on the actions of the parties
on October 8, 2013. The production of the Use of
Force Repo[r]ts from numerous incidents would not
be admissible in this case nor would they likely lead
to admissible evidence. The production of a large
number of Use of Force Reports not related to that
inmate or an incident alleged in a Complaint, would
constitute a threat to the security of the institution and
would provide information on other inmates. The
Defendant requests that Plaintiff’s motion be denied
on this issue.
In Defendant’s response to the motion to compel request #6, Defendant states that he has
provided Plaintiff with the Use of Force Report prepared by Sergeant Wright and on the Use of
Force Report prepared by Defendant Loving. Defendant also asserts that Use of Force reports are
numerous and are routinely prepared for various circumstances. Plaintiff fails to show how this
overly broad, burdensome request would likely lead to admissible evidence, and the burden to
Defendant outweighs any benefit to Plaintiff. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to compel RFP 2 is denied as
to all Use of Force Reports involving Officer Loving.

Request No. 5:

SCDC’s Policy OP-22.01 “Use of Force”- Under Rule
26(b)(1) Fed. R. Civ. P. I have a legal right to anything which
is in any way “relevant” to any part of my defense. I being a
prose Plaintiff and this a case of use of force this policy that
I’m requesting (or the part of it that’s related to this action) is
“relevant/related to this civil suit.

Response to motion: Plaintiff seeks the production of the Use of Force Policy, a
restricted policy. No other policy that, if produced, would
create greater security issues. The Use of Force policy
governs the use of force by officers within the South Carolina
Department of Corrections. Providing this information to
3

inmates, and particularly inmates in a highly restricted area
such as the Special Management Unit, would raise serious
security issues. Plaintiff does not allege that the use of a lead
chain violates policy, and it certainly does not. Plaintiff’s
only allegation is that the Defendant Loving “jerked” on the
lead chain while he was being placed back in his cell in the
Special Management Unit. The Defendant asks that this
request be denied.

A court can limit discovery when the burden of the discovery would outweigh the benefits.
Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii), Fed.R.Civ.P. The security concerns of SCDC institutions of this restricted
policy outweighs Plaintiff's overly broad request. Thus, Plaintiff's motion with respect to RFP 5 is
denied with respect to policy OP–22.01 Use of Force policy.

Request #6:

Copy of medical’s report of the incident on 10-8-13 done by
nurse Harris-This is the nurse who examined me after the
incident so it’s policy that she do a full report and therefore
it’s my Right to See this report.

Response to Motion: Nurse Harris did not prepare an incident report on this
incident. However, the Defendant has provided Plaintiff with
the Use of Force Report prepared by Sergeant Wright and on
the Use of Force Report prepared by the Defendant Loving.
Both entries contain a note from Nurse Harris which states
Plaintiff had a “small red mark around R wrist. No open
areas, brusing. Good ROM.” In addition, the Defendant has
provided the Plaintiff with a copy of the requested medical
encounters from October 8, 2013. There are no other
materials which Plaintiff has requested and the Defendant
requests that Plaintiff’s motion be denied on this issue.
Defendant has provided Plaintiff with the Use of Force Reports from Sergeant Wright and
Defendant Loving and state there are no reports from Nurse Harris. However, Defendant asserts that
there is a note from Nurse Harris in both of the reports submitted to Plaintiff. Defendant has

4

responded to RFP 6 and, therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel RFP 6 is denied.

Request #8:

Any and All Documents required by Rule 803 (3), (4), (5),
(6), (7), (8), (9), (19), (20), (21), and (22) Federal Rules of
Evidence for the Defendant-This is a reasonable Request that
will lead to admissible relevant evidence that under Rule
26(b)(1) Fed. R. Civ. P. I a pro se Plaintiff have a legal Right
to.

Response to motion: Federal Rules of Evidence 803 provides exception to the rule
against hearsay testimony. Plaintiff cites various subsections
of this rule which are exception to the Hearsay Rule. The rule
is not designed for use in a request to produce and it is
unclear what the Plaintiff is even seeking. The Defendant
requests that Plaintiff’s motion be denied on this issue.
It is unclear what Plaintiff is requesting, and this overly broad discovery request is denied. Thus,
RFP 8 is denied.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (doc. #79) is granted in part and denied in part
as set forth above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
May 21, 2015
Florence, South Carolina

5