McPeek v. Meyers et al

Filing 48

ORDER denying 34 Motion For Subpoena ; granting 36 Motion to Stay DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR MOTION DEADLINE ; granting 39 Motion to Submit Declarations Absent Service on the Defendants; denying 41 Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Chief Judge Roberto A. Lange on 04/28/2021. Sent to Plaintiff via USPS on 04/28/2021 (MSB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

TRAVIS R. MCPEEK,

4:20-CV-04078-RAL

Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING DOC DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND
ORDER ON MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS

vs.

CO MEYERS,CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON,IN HIS
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
CO LUCERO,CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON,IN HIS
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
UM KLIMEK,EAST CRAWFORD UNIT
MANAGER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE

PRISON,IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; LT. DYKSTRA,
OFFICER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE

PRISON,IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; UNKNOWN MAIL

ROOM OFFICER(S), CORRECTIONAL
OFFIER(S) AT MIKE DURFEE STATE
PRISON,IN HIS/HER INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; WARDEN BRENT
FLUKE, WARDEN AT MIKE DURFEE
STATE PRISON,IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; WARDEN DARIN
YOUNG,WARDEN AT THE "HILL'VOR
SIOUX FALLS PRISON,IN HIS
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
MARK PAYER,JAIL
ADMINISTRATOR/OFFICER AT YANKTON

COUNTY JAIL, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
Defendants.

Plaintiff Travis P. McPeek filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1.
Defendants CO Meyer, CO Lucero, UM Klimek, Lt. Dystrka, Unknown Mail Room Officers,

Warden Brent Fluke, and Warden Darin Young(DOC Defendants) move to stay discovery until
this Court rules on the their forthcoming motion for summary judgment based on qualified
immunity. Doc. 36.

"Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, not simply from liability" and protects

officials from pretrial discovery. Janis v. Biesheuvel. 428 F.3d 795, 800(8th Cir. 2005)(citing
Mitchell V. Forsvth. 472 U.S. 511,526(1985))."Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of
violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to
dismissal before the commencement of discovery." Mitchell. 472 U.S. at 526 (citing Harlow v.
Fitzgerald. 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). Because DOC Defendants claim they are filing a motion
for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, staying discovery is appropriate.
MePeek moves to subpoena witnesses that will testify to his allegations regarding prison
conditions. Doc. 34. Next, McPeek moves to compel DOC Defendants to answer his

interrogatories. Doc. 41. Because discovery regarding McPeek's claims against the DOC
Defendants has been stayed, his motions. Docs. 34,41, are denied. Finally, McPeek moves to file
inmates' affidavits. Doc. 39, which will be granted.
Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that DOC Defendants' motion to stay discovery. Doc. 36, is granted. It is
further

ORDERED that MePeek's motions for subpoena and to compel. Docs. 34, 41, are denied.
It is finally

ORDERED that McPeek's motion to submit affidavits, Doc. 39, is granted.
DATED April

2021.
BY THE COURT:

ROBERTO A. LANGE
CHIEF JUDGE