Cobb v. Knode et al

Filing 119

ORDER denying 89 Motion to Strike; denying as moot 91 Motion to Expedite; granting in part 93 Motion to Extend; granting in part and denying in part 94 Motion to Compel; denying 100 Motion to Strike; granting in part 102 Motion to Extend; denying 103 Motion to Strike; denying 105 Motion to Strike; denying as moot 108 Motion to Extend; granting in part and denying in part 109 Motion to Compel; denying 111 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by U.S.Magistrate Judge John E. Simko on 9/8/10. (DJP)

Cobb v. Knode et al

Doc. 119

EP 09 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION *************************************************** MATTHEW COBB, Plaintiff, vs.

~~

* * * * * * * 1.

CIV. 0 9 - 4 1 1 0

ORDER
M o t i o n to S t r i k e A f f i d a v i t o f P a m L i n n e w e b e r , Doc. 89; M o t i o n f o r E x p e d i t e d R u l i n g , Doc. 91 ; M o t i o n s for A d d i t i o n a l T i m e , Docs. 9 3 , 1 0 2 , & 108; M o t i o n to C o m p e l , Doc. 94; M o t i o n to S t r i k e A f f i d a v i t o f R e b e c c a W e a v e r , D o c . 100; M o t i o n to S t r i k e A f f i d a v i t o f S t a n l e y K n o d e , D o c . 103; M o t i o n to S t r i k e Ex. A from A f f i d a v i t o f D o u g Loen, Doc. 105; S e c o n d M o t i o n to C o m p e l , D o c . 109; S e c o n d M o t i o n for A p p o i n t m e n t o f C o u n s e l , D o c . 111.

S T A N L E Y K N O D E , Correctional Officer, S D S P ; * R. A R N E T T , C O , S D S P V i s i t R o o m ; * 2. MARCI HARVISON, CO, SDSP Visit Room; * R O B E R T K U E M P E R , A s s o c i a t e W a r d e n , S D S P ; * 3. T O M L I N N E W E B E R , Major, Officer-in-Charge * o f Special Security; D O U G L O E N , attorney, * 4. S D S P Legal C o u n s e l ; A L M A D S E N , U n i t M a n a g e r ; * 5 . S D S P ; K. W R I G H T , CO, S D S P V i s i t R o o m ; * DOUGLAS WEBER, Warden, SDSP; * 6. TIM REISCH, DOC Secretary o f Corrections; * M A R K BIONE, paralegal, S D S P ; * 7. D E L M A R W A L T E R , attorney, S D S P ; * * 8. Defendants. * * 9.

* *
BACKGROUND

***************************************************

P l a i n t i f f , an i n m a t e a t t h e S o u t h D a k o t a S t a t e P e n i t e n t i a r y ( S D S P ) f i l e d a p r o s e c i v i l r i g h t s l a w s u i t p u r s u a n t to 4 2 U . S . c . § 1983. In h i s C o m p l a i n t , h e a l l e g e s D e f e n d a n t s r e t a l i a t e d a g a i n s t h i m a r e s u l t o f h i s c o m p l a i n t s a b o u t r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w h i c h h e a l l e g e s o c c u r r e d in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h his v i s i t i n g p r i v i l e g e s w i t h his m o t h e r a n d half-sister. P l a i n t i f f alleges his visiting privileges with

his m o t h e r a n d h a l f - s i s t e r h a v e b e e n s u s p e n d e d a n d that D e f e n d a n t s h a v e f a b r i c a t e d c h a r g e s o f i n a p p r o p r i a t e c o n d u c t b y h i m a n d h i s m o t h e r , all b e c a u s e D e f e n d a n t ' s h a l f - s i s t e r is p a r t b l a c k . P l a i n t i f f c l a i m s : ( I ) h e has b e e n d e n i e d a c c e s s to t h e C o u r t s i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e F i r s t a n d F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t b e c a u s e p r i s o n o f f i c i a l s h a v e r e f u s e d t o a s s i s t h i m w i t h h i s l e g a l c l a i m s ; (2) b e c a u s e h i s h a l f - s i s t e r is p a r t b l a c k , t h e D e f e n d a n t s h a v e d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t h i m , in v i o l a t i o n o f

Dockets.Justia.com

the E q u a l P r o t e c t i o n C l a u s e a n d the E i g h t h , N i n t h a n d F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t s ; (3) D e f e n d a n t s h a v e t e r m i n a t e d h i s v i s i t s w i t h h i s m o t h e r a n d h a l f - s i s t e r f o r r e a s o n s w h i c h are false, u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d a n d r a c i a l l y m o t i v a t e d , in v i o l a t i o n o f P l a i n t i f f s r i g h t to p r i v a c y , free a s s o c i a t i o n a n d e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n as g u a r a n t e e d b y t h e F i r s t , E i g h t h , N i n t h , a n d F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t s ; ( 4 ) D e f e n d a n t s h a v e a l l o w e d false, l i b e l o u s , d i s c r i m i n a t o r y , m a l i c i o u s , a n d r e t a l i a t o r y r e p o r t s to b e p l a c e d i n h i s p e r m a n e n t r e c o r d w h e r e t h e y w i l l b e u s e d i n a n u n f a i r d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f h i s p a r o l e e l i g i b i l i t y , in v i o l a t i o n o f P l a i n t i f f s d u e p r o c e s s a n d e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n r i g h t s as g u a r a n t e e d b y t h e E i g h t h , N i n t h a n d F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t s ; (5) D e f e n d a n t s h a v e a l l o w e d g r i e v a n c e s to b e filed c o n t r a r y to D O C policy, c r u e l l y d e n y i n g P l a i n t i f f d u e p r o c e s s a s g u a r a n t e e d b y the E i g h t h a n d F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t s ; (6) D e f e n d a n t s h a v e a l l o w e d arbitrary, r e t a l i a t o r y d i s c i p l i n a r y r e p o r t s to b e i s s u e d w h i c h will r e m a i n o n P l a i n t i f f s p e r m a n e n t r e c o r d a n d will b e u s e d to d e t e r m i n e h i s p a r o l e eligibility, c r u e l l y d e n y i n g h i m d u e p r o c e s s a n d e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n as g u a r a n t e e d b y t h e E i g h t h a n d F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t s ; ( 7 ) D e f e n d a n t s h a v e i g n o r e d h i s r e q u e s t s to p r e s e r v e f o r u s e as e v i d e n c e i n this litigation v i d e o t a p e s o f his v i s i t s w h e r e i n a p p r o p r i a t e a t t i r e o r c o n d u c t h a v e b e e n a l l e g e d , c r u e l l y d e n y i n g h i m d u e p r o c e s s a n d e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n as g u a r a n t e e d b y t h e E i g h t h a n d F o u r t e e n t h Amendments.

In s u p p o r t o f h i s C o m p l a i n t , P l a i n t i f f p r o v i d e d the C o u r t w i t h h i s o w n A f f i d a v i t ( D o c . 3), as w e l l as A f f i d a v i t s from his m o t h e r ( S u s a n C o b b ) ( D o c . 4 ) a n d h i s g i r l f r i e n d ( N i c o l e C a m p b e l l ) (Doc. 5).

In h i s C o m p l a i n t , P l a i n t i f f s e e k s i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f in t h e form o f a d e c l a r a t i o n b y the C o u r t that D e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i o n s are u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . H e also s e e k s an Order to p r o v i d e P l a i n t i f f with

copies o j r e p o r t s a l l e g i n g i m p r o p r i e t y b y h i m a n d d i s c i p l i n a r y reports a n d e x p u n g i n g s a i d r e p o r t s
from h i s r e c o r d , p r e s e r v i n g r e l e v a n t v i d e o r e c o r d i n g s and r e i n s t a t i n g his v i s i t i n g p r i v i l e g e s w i t h h i s m o t h e r . P l a i n t i f f also s e e k s m o n e t a r y d a m a g e s i n t h e a m o u n t o f $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 e a c h from D e f e n d a n t s K n o d e and H a r v i s o n a n d f o r r e i m b u r s e m e n t f o r c o s t s a n d fees.

2

DISCUSSION 1. M o t i o n to S t r i k e L i n n e w e b e r ' s A f f i d a v i t (Doc. 89)

O n M a r c h 2 9 , 2 0 1 0 , D e f e n d a n t s f i l e d a M o t i o n for S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t ( D o c . 8 2 ) a l o n g w i t h s u p p o r t i n g d o c u m e n t s . O n e o f t h e s u p p o r t i n g d o c u m e n t s is t h e A f f i d a v i t o f P a m L i n n e w e b e r ( D o c . 8 8 ) , w i t h a t t a c h m e n t s . T h e a t t a c h m e n t s to the A f f i d a v i t c o n s i s t o f p o r t i o n s o f P l a i n t i f f s institutional file i n c l u d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a l reports, d i s c i p l i n a r y reports, and g r i e v a n c e s . I P l a i n t i f f m o v e s to s t r i k e L i n n e w e b e r ' s A f f i d a v i t , a s s e r t i n g t h e d o c u m e n t s in h i s i n s t i t u t i o n a l f i l e s h o u l d b e i n a d m i s s i b l e p u r s u a n t to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) b e c a u s e t h e y are i n s u f f i c i e n t , i m m a t e r i a l , i m p e r t i n e n t and scandalous. P l a i n t i f f also cites v a r i o u s r u l e s o f e v i d e n c e , the m o s t p e r t i n e n t b e i n g Fed. R. Evid. 803(6), the b u s i n e s s record e x c e p t i o n to the h e a r s a y rule. inapplicable b e c a u s e the records are not trustworthy. P l a i n t i f f a s s e r t s the e x c e p t i o n is

T h e issue raised b y P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to S t r i k e is w h e t h e r t h e d o c u m e n t s a t t a c h e d to Linneweber's A f f i d a v i t s h o u l d b e a d m i s s i b l e at the s u m m a r y j u d g e m e n t s t a g e p u r s u a n t to t h e b u s i n e s s record e x c e p t i o n (Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)) to the h e a r s a y rule. T h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f e v i d e n c e is reviewed for a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n , e v e n at the s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t s t a g e o f l i t i g a t i o n . Morgan v.

United Parcel Service o fAmerica, 3 8 0 F . 3 d 4 5 9 , 4 6 7 ( 8 t h Cir. 2 0 0 4 ) . A l t h o u g h P l a i n t i f f w i s h e s to
s t r i k e from t h e r e c o r d t h e d o c u m e n t s w h i c h m e m o r i a l i z e t h e d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n s t a k e n a g a i n s t h i m b y p r i s o n p e r s o n n e l , P l a i n t i f f a t t a c h e d his r e s p o n s e s to t h o s e s a m e d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n s to his o w n A f f i d a v i t ( D o c . 3) w h i c h h e f i l e d in s u p p o r t o f t h e c l a i m s h e m a k e s i n h i s C o m p l a i n t .

Additionally, as p a r t o f the r e l i e f h e s e e k s in his C o m p l a i n t , h e r e q u e s t s the C o u r t to o r d e r the D e f e n d a n t s to p r o d u c e the v e r y d o c u m e n t s h e n o w r e q u e s t s s t r i c k e n from t h e record. P l a i n t i f f c a n n o t h a v e i t b o t h w a y s . F o r t h e r e a s o n s m o r e f u l l y e x p l a i n e d in t h e f o l l o w i n g p a r a g r a p h s , t h e d o c u m e n t s c o n t a i n e d in P l a i n t i f f s i n s t i t u t i o n a l file and attached to L i n n e w e b e r ' s A f f i d a v i t fall w i t h i n the b u s i n e s s record e x c e p t i o n to the h e a r s a y rule u n d e r Fed. R. Evid. 803(6).

L i n n e w e b e r ' s A f f i d a v i t c o n t a i n s E x h i b i t A, w h i c h i n c o r p o r a t e s p o r t i o n s o f P l a i n t i f f s

IThese are the v e r y d o c u m e n t s P l a i n t i f f a s k s the C o u r t to O r d e r D e f e n d a n t s to p r o d u c e as p a r t o f t h e r e l i e f h e s e e k s in h i s C o m p l a i n t . 3

institutional file. Included in Exhibit A are copies o f "informational reports" b y several different prison personnel ( D e f e n d a n t s claim twenty-one, P l a i n t i f f c l a i m s n i n e t e e n ) w h o h a v e w r i t t e n reports regarding the behavior o f both P l a i n t i f f and his mother during visitation sessions at the SDSP. P l a i n t i f f disputes the accuracy o f the information contained in the informational reports, as demonstrated by his grievance documents and other documents, attached as exhibits to his o w n declaration (Doc. 3) and the declaration o f his m o t h e r (Doc. 4) and girlfriend (Doc. 5) submitted in support o f his Complaint. P l a i n t i f f asserts the d o c u m e n t s h e has attached to his supporting declarations proves that at least s o m e o f the claims m a d e in the informational reports have been p r o v e n m e r i t l e s s . ( D o c s . 3-5).

A Magistrate j u d g e from the Western District o f N e w York was recently faced with a similar dilernma: 2 Motions for s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t must be supported by a d m i s s i b l e evidence. Hearsay evidence is not a d m i s s i b l e unless it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule. M e d i c a l and p r i s o n g r i e v a n c e r e c o r d s , a l t h o u g h h e a r s a y , m a y b e a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r the business records exception to the hearsay rule. T h a t e x c e p t i o n renders admissible records o f 'acts events, conditions, opinions, o r diagnoses, m a d e at o r near the time b y or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge' b u t o n l y i f such records are 'kept in the course o f a regularly conducted business activity, and i f i t was the regular practice o f that business activity to m a k e a m e m o r a n d u m , report, record, o r d a t a c o m p i l a t i o n . ' F a c t s s u p p o r t i n g a d m i s s i b i l i t y m u s t b e s u p p l i e d ' b y the t e s t i m o n y o f the c u s t o d i a n o r o t h e r q u a l i f i e d w i t n e s s b y c e r t i f i c a t i o n ' t h a t c o m p l i e s w i t h F e d e r a l R u l e o f E v i d e n c e 902.

Atkinson v. Fischer, 2009 W L 3165544 (W.O.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2009) (citations omitted, punctuation
altered). T h e Magistrate Judge in Atkinson considered the institutional records pursuant to 803(6) even though they were not properly authenticated, b e c a u s e both parties relied upon them in arguing their summary j u d g m e n t positions. In this case, the Defendants resubmitted the institutional records with proper authentication along with the Affidavit o f Rebecca W e a v e r (Doc. 97). Additionally, like

Atkinson, both parties rely on institutional records to support their claims, albeit different parts o f

2In Atkinson, the Defendant prison's motion for s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t was likewise supported by "prison records, including grievance records and medical records." Atkinson v. F i s c h e r , 2 0 0 9 W L 3 1 6 5 5 4 4 ( W . O . N . Y . S e p t . 25, 2 0 0 9 ) .
4

the institutional record.

N e i t h e r p a r t y c i t e s E i g h t h C i r c u i t l a w d i r e c t l y o n p o i n t and t h e C o u r t has f o u n d none. T h e S e v e n t h C i r c u i t , h o w e v e r , h a s r e p e a t e d l y t a k e n t h e v i e w t h a t p r i s o n i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e c o r d s are b u s i n e s s records pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). "A prison is clearly a b u s i n e s s within the meaning o f the t e n n in the statute and the rule, and inasmuch as the m e m o r a n d u m was prepared b y a m e m b e r o f the s t a f f at [the prison] and was lodged in the official prison files, we conclude that it was m a d e in the regular course o f prison activity. T h e fact that the m e m o r a n d u m was retained as part o f p l a i n t i f f s prison file indicates that it is the type o f document routinely relied upon by prison officials." Stone v. Morris, 546 F.2d 730, 738 (7th Cir. 1977). Addressing the argument that such d o c u m e n t s lacked trustworthiness b e c a u s e the source was not known, the C o u r t noted such arguments should go to the weight accorded to the document, not its admissibility. Id. at 738-39. Accord, Moffet v. McCauley, 7 2 4 F . 2 d 5 8 1 , 5 8 4 ( 7 t h Cir. 1 9 8 4 ) . " T h e p r i s o n o f f i c i a l w h o p r e p a r e d t h e r e p o r t h a d a b u s i n e s s d u t y and a p u b l i c obligation to be accurate . . . It is clear that the report does have circumstantial guarantees o f trustworthiness sufficient to meet the trustworthiness requirement o f R u l e 803(24). U n d e r t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , w e t h i n k t h a t the l a c k o f m o r e s p e c i f i c i n f o n n a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the preparation o f the report more properly goes to its w e i g h t than its admissibility." !d.

P l a i n t i f f s b r i e f offers several reasons for the C o u r t to c o n c l u d e the disciplinary reports do n o t m e e t the t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s r e q u i r e m e n t o f R u l e 8 0 3 ( 6 ) . A m o n g t h e m a r e h i s a s s e r t i o n s t h a t p r i s o n personnel were acting in their o w n self-interest w h e n they w r o t e the reports, and that many o f the reports have later been proven wrong. As explained in Wheeler v. Sims, 951 F.2d 796 (7th Cir. 1992), however, part o f t h e "business" o f prison personnel is to m o n i t o r and d o c u m e n t the behavior o f the prisoners. T h i s Court has reviewed hundreds i f not thousands o f disciplinary reports and is aware they f o n n the basis o f all sorts o f decisions m a d e by prison personnel, including rehabilitation, parole, and maintaining the general o r d e r and discipline o f the institution. P l a i n t i f f s disagreement with the accuracy o f the reports is better addressed in his Statement o f Disputed/Undisputed Facts and other summary j u d g m e n t papers than in a motion to strike Linneweber's Affidavit. P l a i n t i f f s Motion to Strike (Doc. 89) is D E N I E D . 5

2.

M o t i o n for E x p e d i t e d R u l i n g (Doc. 91)

P l a i n t i f f filed a M o t i o n for Expedited R u l i n g (Doc. 91) r e q u e s t i n g a r u l i n g o n his M o t i o n to Strike Linneweber's Affidavit before the twenty day d e a d l i n e p a s s e d for him to respond to the D e f e n d a n t s ' S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t M o t i o n w h i c h w a s filed o n M a r c h 2 9 , 2 0 1 0 . T h e P l a i n t i f f s deadline to respond to the S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t d e a d l i n e h a s l o n g p a s s e d and he has filed three Motions for Additional T i m e (Docs. 93, 102 & 108). P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n for E x p e d i t e d R u l i n g (Doc. 91) is therefore DENIED as moot.

3.

Motions for A d d i t i o n a l T i m e (Docs. 93, 102 & 108)

P l a i n t i f f h a s m a d e t h r e e m o t i o n s for a d d i t i o n a l time. T h e f i r s t m o t i o n ( D o c . 9 3 ) r e q u e s t s additional time to respond to Defendants' M o t i o n for S u m m a r y Judgment. P l a i n t i f f explains he needs to k n o w w h e t h e r Linneweber's affidavit will b e stricken, and w h e t h e r he will b e allowed to o b t a i n further d i s c o v e r y i n c l u d i n g d i s c i p l i n a r y r e p o r t s w r i t t e n b e f o r e O c t o b e r 2 0 0 4 . P l a i n t i f f will be allowed until N o v e m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 I 0 to respond to D e f e n d a n t s ' S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t Motion, b u t the time for discovery has closed. P l a i n t i f f s Motion for Additional T i m e (Doc. 93) is G R A N T E D in part.

P l a i n t i f f s Second Motion for additional t i m e (Doc. 102) likewise s e e k s additional time to complete discovery and to respond to Defendants' M o t i o n for S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t . P l a i n t i f f will be allowed until N o v e m b e r 15, 2 0 I 0 to respond to D e f e n d a n t s ' S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t Motion, b u t discovery has closed. P l a i n t i f f s Second M o t i o n for Additional T i m e (Doc. 102) is G R A N T E D in part.

P l a i n t i f f s T h i r d M o t i o n for Additional T i m e (Doc. 108) s e e k s additional time in which to p r e p a r e a S e c o n d M o t i o n for A p p o i n t m e n t o f C o u n s e l . T h e M o t i o n for A p p o i n t m e n t o f C o u n s e l has now been filed. P l a i n t i f f s Third M o t i o n for Additional T i m e (Doc. 108) is D E N I E D as moot.

4.

M o t i o n to Compel (Doc. 94)

P l a i n t i f f filed a M o t i o n to C o m p e l (Doc. 94). He seeks three categories o f information. F o r

6

the following reasons, P l a i n t i f f s Motion is be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

First, P l a i n t i f f asserts Defendants' responses to his R e q u e s t for Production o f Documents is incomplete, because in their answers to his Interrogatories Defendants indicate several dates in which inappropriate contact between P l a i n t i f f and his sister Izabela was "documented" but no "documents" were produced for c o r r e s p o n d i n g dates Production o f Documents. in Defendants' responses to P l a i n t i f f s Request for

S p e c i f i c a l l y , P l a i n t i f f a s s e r t s no d o c u m e n t a t i o n w a s p r o d u c e d f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g d a t e s w h i c h D e f e n d a n t s a s s e r t i n a p p r o p r i a t e c o n t a c t w a s d o c u m e n t e d : 1 2 - 7 - 0 6 and 9 - 2 6 - 0 7 . P l a i n t i f f m a k e s t h i s s a m e a s s e r t i o n for i n s t a n c e s o f i n a p p r o p r i a t e c o n t a c t w i t h h i s g i r l f r i e n d , N i c o l e C a m p b e l l for t h e f o l l o w i n g dates: 5 - 3 0 - 0 8 , 1 0 - 1 1 - 0 8 , 1 1 - 2 9 - 0 8 , 1 2 - 3 0 - 0 8 - , 1 - 2 - 0 9 , 2 - 6 - 0 9 , 4 - 1 7 - 0 9 , a n d 1 0 - 1 9 - 0 9 .

P l a i n t i f f also asserts he has not received all o f the "reports" pertaining to the attire and/or b e h a v i o r o f his m o t h e r d u r i n g h e r v i s i t s . 3 H e b a s e s t h i s c l a i m o n t h e l a n g u a g e in t h e r e p o r t s h e h a s received which refer to previous reports and previous incidents.

Defendants filed a B r i e f and a copy o f their A n s w e r s to P l a i n t i f f s Second Set o f Interrogatories and Responses to Second Request for Production o f Documents. (Docs. 98-1 & 98-2). Defense counsel has explained that no further informational reports exist. Defendants also filed a Supplemental Response (Doc. 118), attaching an updated "visit summary" c o m p u t e r printout which consists o f a log o f P l a i n t i f f s visits, along with an accurate c o m m e n t section. I t is apparent the c o m m e n t s e c t i o n a d d r e s s e s P l a i n t i f f s c o n c e r n s r e g a r d i n g t h e d a t e s for w h i c h t h e r e w a s p r e v i o u s l y provided no documentation for allegedly inappropriate contact between P l a i n t i f f and his sister and/or his girlfriend. T h e updated visit summary, combined with Defendants' representation that no further

3In this regard he specifically mentions a "documented" incident dated August 18, 2006. T h e Defendants have provided an informational report dated A u g u s t 16, 2008. I t appears there was a typographical error in Defendants' Answers to Interrogatories which listed the date as the 16th instead o f the 18th.
7

infonnational reports exist, satisfies D e f e n d a n t s ' obligation to p r o d u c e d o c u m e n t s in response to P l a i n t i f f s Request for Production o f D o c u m e n t s #1. P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to C o m p e l is DENIED as to this category o f documents.

Next, P l a i n t i f f m o v e s to compel the production o f any e x i s t i n g video tapes o f his visits which d e p i c t a l l e g e d l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e c o n d u c t b e t w e e n P l a i n t i f f and h i s y o u n g e r s i s t e r o r h i s g i r l f r i e n d , o r which depict P l a i n t i f f s mother's allegedly inappropriate attire o r conduct. D e f e n d a n t s objected to the production o f the tapes, c l a i m i n g that to do so would j e o p a r d i z e p r i s o n security. B o t h parties agree, however, that an in camera review o f the video tapes is appropriate.

It is therefore

O R D E R E D that P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to Compel is GRANTED in part as to the video tapes as follows: any video tapes w h i c h depict conduct described in Defendants' A n s w e r s to P l a i n t i f f s Interrogatory N o . 1 shall be produced for the Court's in camera review not later than 10 days after the date o f this Order.

Finally, P l a i n t i f f seeks to compel the "duty roster" for the visit room on the dates for w h i c h he received i n f o n n a t i o n a l write-ups d u r i n g his visits. H e asserts he needs to k n o w w h o ( o t h e r than the officers w h o wrote him up) were w o r k i n g in the visit room that day in o r d e r to p r o v e the officers who wrote him up are not telling the truth. T h e Defendants o b j e c t e d to the request, asserting SDSP p o s t o r d e r s c a n n o t be p r o d u c e d for r e a s o n s o f s a f e t y , o r d e r a n d s e c u r i t y o f t h e p r i s o n . P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to Compel the duty rosters is DENIED. P l a i n t i f f m a y rely o n his o w n recollection to submit the testimony o f w h o m e v e r h e wishes to dispute the Defendants' c l a i m s that the conduct o r attire o f P l a i n t i f f o r his v i s i t o r s w a s i n a p p r o p r i a t e .

To Summarize, P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to C o m p e l (Doc. 94) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: P l a i n t i f f s m o t i o n to compel further d o c u m e n t s in r e s p o n s e to P l a i n t i f f s Request for Production o f D o c u m e n t s N o . 1 is DENIED. P l a i n t i f f s m o t i o n to compel production o f the video tapes w h i c h depict conduct described in D e f e n d a n t s ' A n s w e r s to P l a i n t i f f s Interrogatory No. 1 shall be produced for the Court's in camera review not later than 10 days after the date o f this Order. P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to C o m p e l the duty rosters is DENIED.
8

5.

Motion to Strike Affidavit o f Rebecca Weaver (Doc. 100)

D e f e n d a n t s o f f e r e d the A f f i d a v i t o f R e b e c c a W e a v e r a t t a c h i n g p o r t i o n s o f P l a i n t i f f s institutional file after P l a i n t i f f m o v e d to strike the Affidavit o f P a m Linneweber. Weaver's Affidavit p r o p e r l y a u t h e n t i c a t e s P l a i n t i f f s p r i s o n r e c o r d s and a t t a c h e s the c u r r e n t v e r s i o n o f D O C P o l i c y 1.3.E.2 (Administrative R e m e d y F o r Inmates) , a l o n g w i t h an e x p l a n a t i o n o f all the substantive c h a n g e s that h a v e b e e n m a d e to the policy since April, 2003 (a m a t t e r about w h i c h P l a i n t i f f complained regarding the version o f the policy attached to Linneweber's Affidavit). P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to Strike the Affidavit o f R e b e c c a W e a v e r (Doc. 100) is DENIED for the s a m e reasons his M o t i o n to Strike the L i n n e w e b e r Affidavit was denied.

6.

Motion To Strike Affidavit o f Stanley Knode (Doc. 103)

T h e D e f e n d a n t s s u b m i t t e d K n o d e ' s A f f i d a v i t in s u p p o r t o f t h e i r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . Knode's Affidavit explains his e m p l o y m e n t duties at the SDSP, and attaches the Inmate Visiting P o l i c y 1 . 5 . 0 . 1 and t h e S D S P O p e r a t i o n a l M e m o r a n d u m 2 . 5 . 0 . 1 .

P l a i n t i f f seeks to strike Knode's A f f i d a v i t for three reasons: (1) he alleges the attached polices are the current versions b u t the conduct w h i c h is the s u b j e c t o f this lawsuit occurred b e t w e e n M a r c h 2 0 0 2 and J a n u a r y 2 0 0 8 r e n d e r i n g t h e 2 0 0 9 v e r s i o n s o f t h e p o l i c i e s i m m a t e r i a l , i m p e r t i n e n t and irrelevant;4 (2) K n o d e is not an expert and not qualified to testify a b o u t w h e t h e r P l a i n t i f f s contact w i t h Izabela was a p p r o p r i a t e ; and (3) the r e m a i n i n g p a r a g r a p h s in Knode's affidavit (explaining his j o b duties and e x p l a i n i n g the e x i s t e n c e o f video s u r v e i l l a n c e in the visit room) are redundant to averments already m a d e e l s e w h e r e in the record b y P l a i n t i f f and should therefore b e stricken.

Defendants filed a B r i e f o p p o s i n g P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to Strike (Doc. 110). A t t a c h e d to the B r i e f are copies o f all revisions to the Inmate V i s i t i n g P o l i c y and the S D S P Operational

4Plaintiff does not e x p l a i n h o w t h e c u r r e n t p o l i c i e s m a t e r i a l l y d i f f e r from t h e p o l i c i e s w h i c h were in effect during the relevant time frame. T h e C o u r t has reviewed the r e vision logs and has discerned no revisions w h i c h significantly affect the c l a i m s in this lawsuit.
9

Memorandum which have been m a d e since April, 2003. T h e P l a i n t i f f s failure to explain h o w the revisions affect the policies' application to his case, c o m b i n e d with the Defendants' s u b s e q u e n t s u p p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e record d e f e a t s P l a i n t i f f s a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e p o l i c i e s are " i m m a t e r i a l , impertinent and irrelevant." P l a i n t i f f s Motion to Strike b a s e d on this g r o u n d is therefore DENIED.

Defendants assert they are not offering K n o d e as an expert, b u t as a fact witness. Defendants e x p l a i n K n o d e ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e o b s e r v e d " f r e q u e n t " and " i n a p p r o p r i a t e " p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t b e t w e e n P l a i n t i f f and his sister Izabela is an a d m i s s i b l e s t a t e m e n t o f fact and i f it is an o p i n i o n at all, it is lay opinion under Fed. R. Evid. 701.

Knode's j o b r e q u i r e s him to enforce the visit room policy. T h e policy and m e m o r a n d u m attached to Knode's Affidavit state the following r e g a r d i n g physical c onta c t b e t w e e n inmates and their visitors d u r i n g a "Class I" visit:

Policy l . S . D . l
Class I Visit: A visit conducted in a visiting room o r designated v i s i t i n g a r e a o f an adult D O C facility d u r i n g w h i c h l i m i t e d p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t i s a l l o w e d b e t w e e n the i r u n a t e and the visitor. Conjugal visits are not allowed at SO D O C facilities. T e r m i n a t i o n o f a Visit A. A visit can b e terminated o r denied u n d e r the f o l l o w i n g circumstances:
7.

**

A v i s i t o r o r i r u n a t e i n d u l g e s in e x c e s s i v e p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t .

Operation M e m o r a n d u m 2 . S . D . l Visit L i m i t a t i o n s A. Visitation in a correctional institution is a privilege that m a y b e limited o r terminated. Actions in the visit r o o m that affect the s a f e t y o r security o f the staff, inmates and o t h e r v i s i t o r s o r the m a i n t e n a n c e o f o r d e r w i t h i n the i n s t i t u t i o n will n o t b e t o l e r a t e d and may result in a visit b e i n g curtailed and future visit privileges b e i n g suspended o r terminated.

***
10

E.

S D S P will n o t allow an i n m a t e and his s p o u s e o r f e m a l e friend to kiss o n the lips d u r i n g a visit. 1. A n i n m a t e m a y e m b r a c e and b r i e f l y kiss h i s s p o u s e o r f e m a l e friend o n the cheek. U n l e s s o t h e r w i s e d i r e c t e d , i n m a t e s a r e a l l o w e d to k i s s o t h e r i m m e d i a t e f a m i l y m e m b e r s o n t h e lips. R e g a r d l e s s o f the s i t u a t i o n that a p p l i e s , t h e kiss a n d / o r e m b r a c e w i t h any visitor(s) will b e b r i e f and c a n o n l y take p l a c e at the b e g i n n i n g and at the c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e visit. T h e o n l y o t h e r p e r m i s s i b l e physical c o n t a c t is b e t w e e n an i n m a t e and k n o w n family m e m b e r s d u r i n g a visit will b e h a n d h o l d i n g in p l a i n sight a b o v e the table.

2.

3.

4.

F.

Failure to abide b y these rules m a y result in d i s c i p l i n a r y action against the i n m a t e and r e s t r i c t i o n s o r t e r m i n a t i o n o n the i n m a t e ' s v i s i t i n g p r i v i l e g e s .

Fed. R. Evid. 701 states: I f the w i t n e s s is n o t testifying as an expert, the w i t n e s s ' t e s t i m o n y in the form o f o p i n i o n s o r inferences is l i m i t e d to t h o s e o p i n i o n s o r i n f e r e n c e s w h i c h are (a) r a t i o n a l l y b a s e d o n the p e r c e p t i o n o f the w i t n e s s ; (b) helpful to a c l e a r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e w i t n e s s ' t e s t i m o n y o r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a fact i n i s s u e ; a n d (c) n o t b a s e d o n s c i e n t i f i c , t e c h n i c a l , o r o t h e r s p e c i a l i z e d k n o w l e d g e w i t h i n the s c o p e o f R u l e 702.

Fed. R. Evid. 702 states: I f scientific, technical, o r o t h e r s p e c i a l i z e d k n o w l e d g e will assist the trier o f fact to u n d e r s t a n d the e v i d e n c e o r to d e t e r m i n e a fact in issue, a w i t n e s s q u a l i f i e d as an e x p e r t b y k n o w l e d g e , skill, e x p e r i e n c e , t r a i n i n g , o r e d u c a t i o n m a y t e s t i f y t h e r e t o in the form o f an o p i n i o n o r o t h e r w i s e , i f ( l ) the t e s t i m o n y is b a s e d u p o n s u f f i c i e n t facts o r data, (2) the t e s t i m o n y is the p r o d u c t o f reliable p r i n c i p l e s and m e t h o d s , and (3) the w i t n e s s has applied the principles and m e t h o d s r e l i a b l y to the facts o f the case. T h e Eighth Circui t has v e r y recent Iy c o m m e n t e d o n the a d m i s s i o n o f "lay o p i n i o n " t e s t i m o n y u n d e r Rule 701. See United States v. Smith, 591 F . 3 d 974 (8th Cir. 2010). "Personal k n o w l e d g e o r perceptions b a s e d o n e x p e r i e n c e is sufficient f o u n d a t i o n for lay testimony." ld. at 982 (citations

11

omitted, punctuation altered).

A d d i t i o n a l l y , " p e r c e p t i o n s b a s e d on i n d u s t r y e x p e r i e n c e a r e a

sufficient foundation for lay o p i n i o n testimony. " (citations o m i t t e d , e m p h a s i s in original). A lay witnesses's o p i n i o n m u s t not b e b a s e d o n s c i e n t i f i c , t e c h n i c a l , o r o t h e r s p e c i a l i z e d k n o w l e d g e - - s u c h testimony is properly within the s c o p e o f the rule g o v e r n i n g expert t e s t i m o n y ( R u l e 702). Id. T h e inquiry is properly analyzed on a c a s e - b y case basis, e x a m i n i n g b o t h t h e witness and the opinion.

Id.

T h e advisory c o m m i t t e e notes to Rule 701 i n d i c a t e t h e rules w e r e a m e n d e d in 2 0 0 0 in an effort to e l i m i n a t e the risk that the reliability requirements set forth in Rule 702 will b e evaded trough the s i m p l e e x p e d i e n t o f proffering an e x p e r t in lay w i t n e s s clothing. Fed. R. Evid. 701 C o m m i t t e e notes to 2 0 0 0 A m e n d m e n t s . T h e a m e n d m e n t s served a dual purpose: First, to ensure that e v i d e n c e qualifying as expert t e s t i m o n y under R u l e 702 will n o t e v a d e t h e r e l i a b i l i t y s c r u t i n y m a n d a t e d b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ' s decision in Daubert v. Merrell D o w Parms. Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 5 8 7 - 8 8 , 1 1 3 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and second, to provide a s s u r a n c e that the parties will not use Rule 701 to evade the witness pretrial disclosure r e q u i r e m e n t s o fFed. R. Civ. P.26.

M. 0. CH.A. Society v. City o f Buffalo, 2008 W L 4412093 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2008) (citations
omitted, p u n c t u a t i o n altered). T h e M . o . CH.A C o u r t noted that w h i l e it is s o m e t i m e s difficult to distinguish between Rule 701 t e s t i m o n y and expert testimony, "an essential difference is that Rule 701 requires direct personal k n o w l e d g e o f the factual m a t t e r at issue. O n l y t h e n does it allow introduction o f a limited degree o f o p i n i o n t e s t i m o n y to help c o n v e y that information and only if t h e court finds that it would b e helpful to the trier o f fact." Id. Additional distinction b e t w e e n lay and expert testimony was m a d e in United States v. Frantz, 2004 W L 5 6 4 2 9 0 9 (C.D. Cal.). L a y o p i n i o n t e s t i m o n y m o s t o f t e n t a k e s the form o f a s u m m a r y o f first h a n d observations . . . it is admissible o n l y to help the j u r y o r the court to understand the facts about w h i c h the witness is testifying and not to p r o v i d e specialized explanations o r interpretations that an untrained layman could not m a k e i f p e r c e i v i n g the s a m e acts o r events.

Id. at * 12. See also, United States v. Espino, 317 F . 3 d 788, 797 (8th Cir. 2 0 0 3 ) (Fed. R. Evid. 701
a l l o w s lay o p i n i o n b a s e d o n w i t n e s s ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f e v e n t s ) .

12

The statements in K n o d e ' s affidavit do n o t p u r p o r t to a p p l y s p e c i a l i z e d o r technical k n o w l e d g e . K n o d e e n f o r c e s a p o l i c y t h a t p r o h i b i t s p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t b e t w e e n i n m a t e s and t h e i r v i s i t o r s e x c e p t h o l d i n g h a n d s and a b r i e f k i s s / e m b r a c e a t t h e b e g i n n i n g a n d e n d o f a v i s i t . T h e inmates' visit m a y b e t e n n i n a t e d i f the i n m a t e and his v i s i t o r e n g a g e in "excessive" physical contact. K n o d e reported his o b s e r v a t i o n s o f P l a i n t i f f s interaction with P l a i n t i f f s visitors c o m p a r e d to the s t a n d a r d s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e p o l i c y and m e m o r a n d u m . H i s t e s t i m o n y f a l l s w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f a l a y o p i n i o n p u r s u a n t to Fed. R. Evid. 701. P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to S t r i k e K n o d e ' s A f f i d a v i t o n the ground that it is i m p r o p e r e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y is D E N I E D .

P l a i n t i f f s final o b j e c t i o n to Knode's A f f i d a v i t is that the i n f o n n a t i o n it c o n t a i n s is r e d u n d a n t and i m p e r t i n e n t . P l a i n t i f f a s s e r t s t h a t b e c a u s e h i s C o m p l a i n t a l r e a d y e x p l a i n s K n o d e ' s j o b d u t i e s and t h e p l a c e m e n t o f v i d e o c a m e r a s , t h e s a m e i n f o n n a t i o n s h o u l d b e s t r i c k e n f r o m K n o d e ' s Affidavit. T h e D e f e n d a n t s are entitled to lay the f o u n d a t i o n for the b a s i s o f the facts stated in their affiant's declarations. P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to S t r i k e K n o d e ' s A f f i d a v i t o n the g r o u n d it c o n t a i n s redundant and i m p e r t i n e n t i n f o n n a t i o n is D E N I E D .

B e c a u s e Knode's Affidavit is not b a s e d o n i m p r o p e r p o l i c i e s , d o e s not c o n t a i n i m p r o p e r expert testimony, and d o e s not c o n t a i n r e d u n d a n t o r i m p e r t i n e n t i n f o n n a t i o n , P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to Strike Knode's A f f i d a v i t (Doc. 103) is D E N I E D in its entirety.

7.

M o t i o n to S t r i k e EX A f r o m A f f i d a v i t o f D o u g L o e n (Doc. 105)

D e f e n d a n t s filed Loen's A f f i d a v i t (Doc. 86) in s u p p o r t o f their S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t motion. Attached as E X A to Loen's A f f i d a v i t is a c o p y o f L o e n ' s letter to P l a i n t i f f d a t e d N o v e m b e r 9, 2009. T h e l e t t e r e x p l a i n s t h a t b e c a u s e P l a i n t i f f has n a m e d t h e I n m a t e L e g a l O f f i c e a t t o r n e y a n d p a r a l e g a l as Defendants in his lawsuit, a c o n f l i c t o f interest exists and they c a n no l o n g e r assist him. Loen's letter states, "A b a c k u p Legal A s s i s t a n c e A t t o r n e y is a v a i l a b l e to a s s i s t you w i t h y o u r legal needs for research, habeas corpus o r § 1983 actions. T h e attorneys (sic) n a m e and a d d r e s s are: . . . "

P l a i n t i f f interpreted the letter to say that the b a c k u p a t t o r n e y " h a d b e e n a p p o i n t e d to assist
13

him in matters unrelated to this action." P l a i n t i f f therefore m o v e s to strike E X A from Loen's affidavit as "self-serving and irrelevant to this action." T h e D e f e n d a n t s filed a B r i e f in O p p o s i t i o n to the Motion (Doc. 110).

T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s has e x p l i c i t l y r e c o g n i z e d t h a t "the f u n d a m e n t a l constitutional right o f access to the courts r e q u i r e s p r i s o n authorities to assist inmates in the p r e p a r a t i o n a n d f i l i n g o f m e a n i n g f u l legal p a p e r s b y p r o v i d i n g p r i s o n e r s w i t h a d e q u a t e l a w l i b r a r i e s
o r adequate assistance from persons trained in the law." B o u n d s v. Smith, 430 U.S. 8 1 7 , 8 2 8 , 9 7

S.Ct. 1491, 1 4 9 8 , 5 2 L.Ed.2d 72 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ( e m p h a s i s added). " [ C ] o n s i s t e n t w i t h the constitutional right asserted by the plaintiff, namely the right o f m e a n i n g f u l access to the courts, the term 'adequate' as used in B o u n d s to m o d i f y 'assistance from persons trained in the law' refers not to the effectiveness o f representation, b u t to the adequacy o f the prisoner's access to his o r h e r court-appointed counsel o r other law-trained assistant." S c h r i e r v. H a l f o r d , 60 F . 3 d 1309, 1312-13 (8th Cir. 1995). T h e S u p r e m e Court later explained that " B o u n d s did not create an abstract, freestanding right to a law l i b r a r y o r l e g a l a s s i s t a n c e . . . . t h e i n m a t e m u s t t h e r e f o r e go o n e s t e p f u r t h e r a n d d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e alleged shortcomings in the library o r legal assistance program hindered his efforts to p u r s u e a legal claim." L e w i s v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 3 5 1 , 1 1 6 S.Ct. 2174, 2 1 8 0 , 1 3 5 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). T h e i n m a t e m u s t d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t a n o n f r i v o l o u s legal c l a i m h a s b e e n f r u s t r a t e d o r i s b e i n g i m p e d e d .
Id., 518 U.S. at 353, 116 S.Ct. at 2181 .5 T o prevail on an access to the courts claim, an i n m a t e m u s t

show he has suffered an actual injury {Moore v. Plaster, 2 6 6 F.3d 928, 933 (8th Cir. 2001), and that he has suffered prejudice (Berdella v. D e l o , 972 F.2d 204, 209 (8th Cir. 1992)). I t has b e e n noted that: in order for an inmate to s h o w [inadequate legal facilities] h i n d e r e d his efforts to p u r s u e a . . . l e g a l c l a i m , he m u s t s h o w t h a t h e e n c o u n t e r e d m o r e t h a n m e r e d e l a y o r inconvenience. Indeed, a delay in b e i n g able to w o r k on one's legal action o r c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h the courts does not rise to the level o f a constitutional violation . . . . In other words, i f an i n m a t e experienced delays in p u r s u i n g a . . . claim, b u t files a c c e p t a b l e legal p l e a d i n g s w i t h i n c o u r t d e a d l i n e s , h e c a n n o t c l a i m h e w a s p r e j u d i c e d

5The Eighth C i r c u i t has stated, " L e w i s limits the s c o p e o f the right o f access to the courts to the filing o f an action attacking a sentence or c h a l l e n g i n g c o n d i t i o n s o f confinement." C o d y v. Weber, 256 F.3d 764, 770 (8th Cir. 2001). 14

by shortcomings in a prison's law library, b e c a u s e he has sustained no relevant actual InJury.

Benjamin v. Kerik, 102 F.Supp.2d 157, 164 (S.D. N Y 2000) a f f d 2 6 4 F.3d 175 (2nd Cir. 2001). See also, Holloway v. Dobbs, 715 F.2d 390 ( 8 t h Cir. 1983) (prisoner's access to the courts claim
dismissed w h e n prisoner was represented b y counsel d u r i n g t i m e in question); Brooks v. Buscher, 62 F.3d 176, 179 (7th Cir. 1995) (prisons m u s t p r o v i d e access to law library or to persons trained in t h e law, b u t not both); Brinson v. McKeeman, 992 F.Supp. 897, 909 (W.D. Tex. 1997) ( " [ T ] h e state m u s t furnish indigent inmates with a p e n and p a p e r to draft legal d o c u m e n t s , stamps to mail them, and adequate o p p o r t u n i t y to conduct legal research through access to a d e q u a t e law libraries

or access to 'persons trained in the law' o r o t h e r persons who can p r o v i d e legal assistance. ")
( e m p h a s i s added).

It appears P l a i n t i f f misunderstands the i m p o r t o f L o e n ' s letter. Loen informed P l a i n t i f f t h a t
b e c a u s e the legal s t a f f at SDSP were named in P l a i n t i f f s lawsuit, they would no longer b e able to a s s i s t h i m w i t h h i s legal n e e d s ( i n c l u d i n g h i s p e n d i n g c a s e ) . S u b s t i t u t e c o u n s e l w o u l d t h e r e f o r e b e available. B o t h t h e E i g h t h C i r c u i t and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t has i n d i c a t e d , h o w e v e r , a prison's duty to provide a s t a f f attorney to a d e q u a t e l y p r o v i d e a p r i s o n e r w i t h access to the Courts is not the equivalent o f k e e p i n g an attorney on retainer for a private citizen. W h i l e the state has the obligation to provide an i n m a t e w i t h the capability to b r i n g actions s e e k i n g new trials, release from confinement, o r vindication o f civil rights, it "has no o b l i g a t i o n to e n a b l e the prisoners to discover grievances or to litigate effectively o n c e in court." White v. Kautzky , 4 9 4 F .3d 677, 680 (8th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted, emphasis in original). "In o t h e r words, Bounds does not guarantee inmates the wherewithal to transform themselves into litigating engines . . . " Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 356, 116 S.Ct. 2182, 135 L.Ed.2d 6 0 6 (1996). Loen's letter inf or m e d P l a i n t i f f o f the boundaries o f A t t o r n e y Adams' services pursuant to Lewis. E X A to Loen's A f f i d a v i t is not s e l f - s e r v i n g o r

irrelevant. P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to Strike EX A to Loen's Affidavit (Doc. 105) is DENIED.

8.

Second Motion to Compel (Doc. 109)

P l a i n t i f f m o v e s to compel discovery. H e seeks five categories o f information. First, P l a i n t i f f requests an a n s w e r to his Interrogatory N o . 1 (Second Set) w h e r e i n P l a i n t i f f inquires h o w long the

15

SDSP maintains copies o f video surveillance tapes.

T h e D e f e n d a n t s o b j e c t e d , c l a i m i n g the

interrogatory seeks information which is "confidential and cannot b e disclosed to inmates for reasons o f safety, o r d e r a n d s e c u r i t y . . . " T h e C o u r t h a s a l r e a d y o r d e r e d a n y s u r v e i l l a n c e v i d e o s w h i c h depict conduct b y P l a i n t i f f and/or his m o t h e r which Defendants claim inappropriate b e produced for

in camera review b y the Court. P l a i n t i f f s Motion is G R A N T E D in p a r t as to Interrogatory No. I
(Second Set) to the extent that w h a t e v e r video surveillance remains shall b e produced in camera within ten days o f this Order. T h e Motion is otherwise DENIED as to Interrogatory N o . 1 (Second Set).

Next, P l a i n t i f f seeks to compel a more complete response to Interrogatory N o . 2 (Second Set). This interrogatory requests information about who within the prison system was m a d e aware o f r e p o r t s a l l e g i n g i n a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o r b e t w e e n P l a i n t i f f a n d his h a l f - s i s t e r I z a b e l a . T h e C o u r t has reviewed Defendants' response to this Interrogatory and finds it is sufficient. P l a i n t i f f s Motion to Compel as to Interrogatory N o . 2 (Second Set) is DENIED.

P l a i n t i f f seeks to compel a response to Interrogatory No. 4 (Second Set) requesting information about the credentials o f Laura May, the STOP coordinator at SDSP. Defendants objected to this request as irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. P l a i n t i f f asserts he should b e allowed to discover Ms. May's qualifications b e c a u s e she reviewed a video tape and found it inconclusive. T h e issue in this case is w h e t h e r the visit room policy was violated, not whether a sex offense occurred. T h e standard o f behavior for the visit room is different than for determining whether child abuse and/or a sex offense has b e e n committed. P l a i n t i f f s Motion to Compel as to Interrogatory N o . 4 is DENIED.

P l a i n t i f f seeks to compel production o f documents in response to his R e q u e s t for Production Nos. I , 3 and 4 (First Set) (informational reports which h e claims exist b u t the Defendants claim do not exist). This subject has already been addressed above in P l a i n t i f f s First Motion to Compel. T h e r u l i n g r e m a i n s t h e same.

Plaintiffseeks to compel production o f t h e documents he requested in Request for Production o f D o c u m e n t s N o . 5 ( S e c o n d S e t ) ( a c o p y o f the " p e r t i n e n t " v e r s i o n o f P o l i c y I . I . C . 3 , R e p o r t i n g A n

16

Abused o r Neglected Child. P l a i n t i f f asserts the version o f the policy provided in response to his Request for Production is the 2010 version and its revision log was an inadequate response. Accordingly, Defendants attached to their responsive B r i e f the versions o f the policy which were in effect from 2005 through 2009. P l a i n t i f f is now in possession o f the v a r i o u s versions o f policy I . I . C . 3 which existed from 2005 forward. P l a i n t i f f s Motion to Compel Production o f Documents in response to Request for Production o f D o c u m e n t s N o . 5 (Second Set) is DENIED as moot.

8.

P l a i n t i f f s Second Motion for Appointment o f Counsel (Doc. 111)

P l a i n t i f f requests counsel b e appointed to represent him. H e cites his inability to rebut the Defendants' assertions that documents they have not produced do not exist, and his general inexperience with the law and inability to conduct legal research. T h e s e are the same general arguments and claims P l a i n t i f f m a d e in his first Motion for A p p o i n t m e n t o f Counsel. Since that time, P l a i n t i f f has s e r v e d d i s c o v e r y r e q u e s t s u p o n t h e D e f e n d a n t s a n d a b l y r e p r e s e n t e d h i m s e l f throughout the c o u r s e o f the multiple motions h e has filed with the Court. For the reasons already s t a t e d in t h e C o u r t ' s O r d e r ( D o c . 79) D e n y i n g P l a i n t i f f s F i r s t M o t i o n F o r A p p o i n t m e n t o f C o u n s e l P l a i n t i f f s Motion is DENIED.

C O N C L U S I O N AND O R D E R
For the reasons explained above, it is hereby O R D E R E D : 1. P l a i n t i f f s Motion to Strike LilU1eweber's Affidavit (Doc. 89) is DENIED;

2.

P l a i n t i f f s Motion for an Expedited Ruling (Doc. 91) is DENIED as moot;

3.

P l a i n t i f f s Motions for Additional T i m e (Docs. 93 and 102) are G R A N T E D in part as follows: P l a i n t i f f shall have until N o v e m b e r 15, 2 0 1 0 to respond to Defendants' Motion for S u m m a r y Judgment; the balance o f the motions are DENIED. P l a i n t i f f s Third Motion for Additional T i m e (Doc. 108) is DENIED as moot;

4.

P l a i n t i f f s Motion to Compel (Doc. 94) is G R A N T E D in part and D E N I E D in part as follows: T h e motion is DENIED as to P l a i n t i f f s Motion to C o m p e l response to Request for Production o f Documents N o . 1 . T h e motion is G R A N T E D in part as to P l a i n t i f f s request 17

for production o f video tapes; h o w e v e r the video tapes which are r e s p o n s i v e to Plaintiff's Interrogatory N o . 1 shall b e provided to the C o u r t for in camera r e v i e w not later than 10 days after the date o f this Order. Plaintiff's M o t i o n to C o m p e l duty rosters is DENIED;

5.

Plaintiff's M o t i o n to Strike to Affidavit o f Rebecca W e a v e r (Doc. 100) is DENIED;

6.

Plaintiff's M o t i o n to Strike the A f f i d a v i t o f Stanley K n o d e (Doc. 103) is DENIED;

7.

Plaintiff's M o t i o n to Strike E X A from the A f f i d a v i t o f D o u g Loen (Doc. 105) is DENIED;

8.

Plaintiff's Second M o t i o n to Compel (Doc. 109) is G R A N T E D in part and D E N I E D in part as follows: the m o t i o n is G R A N T E D as to the request for p r o d u c t i o n o f the video tape depicting i n a p p r o p r i a t e behavior. Said video(s) shall b e p r o d u c e d within 10 days o f this Order for in camera review by the Court. T h e b a l a n c e o f the m o t i o n is DENIED.

9.

Plaintiff's Second M o t i o n for A p p o i n t m e n t o f Counsel (Doc. 111) is D E N I E D .

D a t e d this

~

d a y o f S e p t e m b e r , 2010. BY THE COURT:

18