West v. Byars et al

Filing 97

ORDER denying 84 Motion for a Court Order; denying 87 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 6/9/2014.(mcot, ) (Main Document 97 replaced on 6/9/2014) (mcot, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

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

Christopher Gearl West, # 183479, aka
Christopher West

v.
Director William R. Byars, Jr.; Warden
Cecilia Reynolds; Associate Warden Jerry
Washington; Major Darren Seaward;
Captain Daniel Dubose; Sergeant Baker;
Officer Chris Hunt; Officer Robert
Bigham; Inst. Investigator Sylvesta
Robinson; Nurse Luanne Mungo; Robert
Bryan; in their individual and official
capacity as corrections employees of the
State of South Carolina,
Defendants.

C/A No. 5:13-cv-01849-DCN-KDW

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 87, and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Order, ECF No. 84. Defendants have filed Responses in
Opposition to each of Plaintiff’s Motions. ECF Nos. 88, 93. Pursuant to the provisions of
Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., this
magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in prisoner petitions filed under
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions
In Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 87, pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, he argues that Defendants have failed to comply with the court’s
Order issued on February 6, 2014, ECF No. 72. Plaintiff asks that the court hold Defendants

in contempt for their failure to obey a court order and order Defendants to pay expenses and
take any other measure that will eradicate delays in future discovery. Id. Defendants maintain
that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions is untimely and improper because it was filed eleven
days prior to the May 6, 2014 discovery deadline. ECF No. 93 at 1-2. Further, Defendants
argue that they have served discovery responses on the Plaintiff in compliance with the
court’s February 6, 2014 Order. Therefore, Defendants maintain that Plaintiff’s Motion
should be denied pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A).
This court extended the discovery deadline until May 6, 2014, for all parties. See ECF
No. 72. Further, the court finds that Defendants served discovery responses on Plaintiff by
the deadline imposed as evidenced by Exhibits A-G contained in Defendants’ Response.1 See
ECF Nos. 93-2 to 93-8. The court finds Defendants have responded to the court’s Order that
it serve Plaintiff with discovery in good faith. Therefore, sanctions are not warranted, and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 87, is denied.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Order
In Plaintiff’s Motion for a Court Order, he asks the court to have negative entries
from his South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) Health Service medical
summary and his institutional record expunged. ECF No. 84 at 1. Plaintiff explains that he
disagrees with portions of the medical summary and his institutional record. Id. at 1-3.
Defendants maintain that they attached the two documents Plaintiff discusses as exhibits to
their Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 88. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Motion
is directed at the creators of these documents and not against Defendants. Id. at 2. Therefore,

1

The court acknowledges Plaintiff’s letter, ECF No. 86, wherein he discusses outstanding
discovery he alleges Defendants owe him. Because Defendants have since served discovery
responses on Plaintiff, as evidenced by the Response to his Motion for Sanctions, ECF No.
93, it is unnecessary for the undersigned to address Plaintiff’s letter here.
2 

Defendant’s argue Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied because it is directed at a non-party to
this lawsuit. Id.
Here, Plaintiff disagrees with the entries contained in his SCDC medical and mental
health records. He is essentially requesting injunctive relief on a claim not raised in his
complaint. The time to amend pleadings ended on September 19, 2013. See ECF No. 29.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s time to make additional requests for relief has expired, and Plaintiff’s
Motion for injunctive relief is not properly before the court. Even if his request was brought
timely, Plaintiff would not be entitled to relief. See James v. Jackson, No. 0:01-cv-3981TLW-BM, 2003 WL 22937928 (D.S.C. Jan. 22, 2003). “[T]o set forth a cognizable claim to
have erroneous information expunged from his file under the due process clause, Plaintiff
must show that 1) the offending information is in his file, 2) that the information is false, and
3) that it is being relied on to a constitutionally significant degree.” Id. at *6. Here, Plaintiff
has not presented evidence to this court sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact that the
information contained in his medical summary and institutional record are false. See id.
(internal citations omitted) (“It is not sufficient [to give rise to a claim] that the information is
true but the inmate nonetheless deems it prejudicial. Similarly, it is not sufficient that the
inmate disputes evaluations and opinions regarding him.”). Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for
a Court Order, ECF No. 84, is denied.

3 

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 87, and
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Court Order, ECF No. 84, are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 9, 2014
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge

4