Ultimate Cakra Liberation et al v. Trinity Food Service et al
Filing
68
ORDER denying 50 Petition for Writ of Mandamus; denying 53 65 Motions for Extraordinary Relief; denying 54 Motion to Compel Discovery; granting in part and denying in part 57 Motion to Compel Discovery; denying 66 Motion to Compel the Court. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 1/20/2022. (Mays, Samuel)
Case 1:17-cv-01190-SHM-cgc Document 68 Filed 01/20/22 Page 1 of 13
PageID 1343
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
CHARLES ORLANDO FIELDS
a/k/a NOBLE:BUDDHA-ANGAVU:SISHYA
a/k/a ULTIMATE CAKRA LIBERATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRINITY FOOD SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:17-cv-01190-SHM-cgc
ORDER
I.
Background
On October 4, 2017, four pro se plaintiffs jointly filed an
initial complaint against various prisons, corporations, persons
in their official and individual capacities, and the Tennessee
Department of Corrections (“TDOC”). (ECF No. 1) (the “Initial
Complaint”). On October 24, 2017, Plaintiff Charles Orlando
Fields
(“Fields”)
a/k/a
Noble:buddha-angavu:sishya
a/k/a
Ultimate Cakra Liberation filed a supplemental complaint against
additional persons in their official and individual capacities.
(ECF No. 11) (the “Supplemental Complaint”). The Complaints
address events that allegedly took place at Hardeman County
Correctional Facility (“HCCF”) and Trousdale Turner Correctional
Case 1:17-cv-01190-SHM-cgc Document 68 Filed 01/20/22 Page 2 of 13
PageID 1344
Center (“TTCC”), two state prisons. Fields is the sole remaining
plaintiff in this action. He is currently incarcerated at TTCC.
See
Felony
Offender
Information,
https://apps.tn.gov/foil/search.jsp
“Charles
(last
Orlando
accessed
Fields,”
Jan.
12,
2022).
The Initial Complaint names Bernard Dietz (“Dietz”) as a
defendant. Diez worked as a physician at HCCF. Fields alleges
that Dietz refused to respond to Fields’ sick-call requests,
refused to order Fields “a therapeutic diet,” and canceled
Fields’ planned hernia surgery. (ECF No. 1, 14-15.) 1 Fields
alleges that he is in severe pain from a hernia that, if not
surgically corrected, “may rupture and cause poisoning or death.”
(ECF No. 1, 22.)
The Initial Complaint names HCCF Library Supervisor Darlene
Mathews (“Mathews”) as a defendant. Fields alleges that Mathews
denied him copies of legal documents from a pending case in the
Davidson County Chancery Court. (ECF No. 1, 17.) Fields alleges
that the state court ordered him to provide copies of the summons
in duplicate form and the complaint for each Defendant in his
case. (ECF No. 1, 17.) Fields requested these copies from Mathews
and provided the unit manager a copy of the court’s order. (ECF
No. 1, 17.) Mathews allegedly refused to make the copies, and
1
All pincites refer to PageID numbers.
2
Case 1:17-cv-01190-SHM-cgc Document 68 Filed 01/20/22 Page 3 of 13
PageID 1345
Fields missed the court’s deadline to submit them. (ECF No. 1,
17.) The court then dismissed Fields’ complaint for failing to
comply with court orders. (ECF No. 1, 17.) Fields alleges that
he is at risk of missing another deadline in his “out-of-state
cases” because of Mathews’ actions. (ECF No. 1, 22.)
The Supplemental Complaint names former HCCF Warden Grady
Perry (“Perry”) as a defendant. Fields alleges that he gave Perry
a grievance requesting an “adequate nutritious religious meal”
in accordance with Jainism. (ECF No. 11, 216.) Perry allegedly
responded that “he does not go by TDOC policies he goes by his
own.”
(ECF
No.
“implement[ed]
11,
216.)
regulation
Fields
[sic]
to
claims
that
infringe
on
Perry
has
[Fields’]
religious practice” of Jainism. (ECF No. 11, 216.)
On October 17, 2019, the Court enter an order partially
dismissing the two Complaints. (ECF No. 37.) The Court found
that Fields had sufficiently pled an Eighth Amendment claim
against Dietz for the alleged failure to allow Fields’ hernia
procedure to proceed, a First Amendment claim against Perry, and
a First Amendment claim against Mathews. (ECF No. 37, 23.) It
dismissed all other claims and defendants. The Court directed
the U.S. Marshal to make service on Dietz, Mathews, and Perry.
(ECF No. 37, 24.) The U.S. Marshal received an executed summons
from Perry, but not from Dietz or Mathews. (ECF Nos. 46; 39.)
3
Case 1:17-cv-01190-SHM-cgc Document 68 Filed 01/20/22 Page 4 of 13
PageID 1346
The process receipt noted that Dietz and Mathews were no longer
employed at HCCF. (ECF No. 39.)
A petition for writ of mandamus and five motions are pending
before the Court.
II.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
On May 15, 2020, Fields petitioned the Court for a writ of
mandamus
directing
prison
employees
to
provide
Fields
with
stationery materials, access to computers, and copies of legal
documents. (ECF No. 50) (the “Petition for Writ of Mandamus”).
Fields says that he is unable to respond to Defendant Perry’s
First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of
Documents if the employees “are not compelled to provide what
they continue to deprive [him] of . . . .” (ECF No. 50, 955.)
Congress
has
provided
district
courts
with
mandamus
jurisdiction “to compel an officer or employee of the United
States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the
plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. To obtain relief, an individual
must establish that he has a clear right to relief and that a
federal employee has a clear, nondiscretionary duty to act. See
Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616–17 (1984); In re Bankers
Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir. 1995); Ryon v. O’Neill,
894 F.2d 199, 205 (6th Cir. 1990). The individuals from whom
Fields
seeks
relief
are
employees
4
of
CoreCivic,
a
private
Case 1:17-cv-01190-SHM-cgc Document 68 Filed 01/20/22 Page 5 of 13
corporation
that
manages
HCCF
and
TTCC.
The
Court
PageID 1347
lacks
jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief.
To
the
extent
that
Fields
alleges
violations
of
his
constitutional rights, he must assert those claims in a separate
action. The employees Fields names in his petition are not named
in his Complaint and cannot be joined. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
20(a)(2). The right to relief against those employees arises out
of a transaction or occurrence that is different from the one
now before the Court. See id. Fields’ Petition for Writ of
Mandamus is DENIED.
III. Motions for Extraordinary Relief
On August 26, 2020, and December 27, 2021, Fields filed
motions seeking a temporary restraining order and permanent
injunction. (ECF No. 53; 65) (the “Motions for Extraordinary
Relief”). The Motions address Fields’ request for a vegan diet
excluding root vegetables, his request for protection against
violence from other inmates, and his request for legal materials.
Fields is incarcerated at TTCC. The remaining defendants
were employees at HCCF. Fields’ Motions are moot. See Moore v.
Curtis, 68 Fed. Appx. 561, 562 (6th Cir. 2003) (holding that
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against prison staff
are moot when inmate transferred to another facility); Dellis v.
Corr. Corp. of Am., 257 F.3d 508, 510 n.1 (6th Cir. 2001)( same);
5
Case 1:17-cv-01190-SHM-cgc Document 68 Filed 01/20/22 Page 6 of 13
PageID 1348
Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175 (6th Cir. 1996)(same). The
Motions for Extraordinary Relief are DENIED as moot.
IV.
Motions to Compel Discovery
On May 5, 2020, Defendant Perry propounded a First Set of
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. On
June 8, 2020, Fields confirmed receipt of the written discovery
requests but did not respond to the requests. Perry sent a letter
on June 25, 2020, requesting that Fields respond to the written
discovery requests within fourteen days of receipt of the letter.
Receiving
no
response,
Perry
filed
a
motion
to
compel
on
September 10, 2020. (ECF No. 54) (the “First Motion to Compel
Discovery”).
On or about September 23, 2020, Fields responded to the
written discovery requests. In response to Interrogatory Nos. 2,
12, and 14, Fields said he would not answer the interrogatories
“unless
you
[Plaintiff]
provide
were
at
proof
of
claim
[Whiteville
that
the
Correctional
Defendant
Facility]
and
from
December 1, 2016, through July 18, 2019.” (ECF No. 57, 1197,
1207, 1209.) 2 Fields did not provide the information sought in
Interrogatory No. 3, about criminal offenses, or the information
sought in Interrogatory No. 4, about prescribed medications.
(ECF No. 57, 1198-99.)
In his Answer, Perry says that “at all times relevant the Defendant
was the Warden of HCCF.” (ECF No. 45 at ¶ 4.)
2
6
Case 1:17-cv-01190-SHM-cgc Document 68 Filed 01/20/22 Page 7 of 13
PageID 1349
Fields responded to each request for production with a
version
of
the
following:
“I
cannot
provide
you
with
all
documents that will be used because I am being denied access to
the courts and face imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
(ECF. No. 57, 1214-16.) The Court understands that Fields did
not provide responsive documents because he refuses to sign the
name “Charles Orlando Fields” and therefore is denied access to
prison library resources. 3 Fields did not sign the oath page
appended to the written discovery requests, the employment and
prison
records
release
authorization,
or
the
HIPAA
release
authorization. (ECF. No. 57, 1217-19.) Fields wrote on the oath
page, “I am refusing to sign this contract because it’s bias and
favors the Defendant Perry and it violates my religious beliefs.”
(ECF. No. 57, 1217.)
On October 21, 2020, Perry sent a letter to Fields outlining
Perry’s concerns with the discovery responses. Although Fields
sent a letter to Perry’s counsel further outlining Fields’
objections
to
the
requests,
he
has
not
sent
supplemental
discovery responses. On November 12, 2020, Perry filed a second
motion to compel. (ECF No. 57) (the “Second Motion to Compel
Discovery”). He seeks an order from the Court compelling Fields
to cure discovery deficiencies.
The Court bases its understanding on the facts in Fields’ Petition
for Writ of Mandamus.
3
7
Case 1:17-cv-01190-SHM-cgc Document 68 Filed 01/20/22 Page 8 of 13
PageID 1350
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that “[e]ach
interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be
answered separately and fully . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3).
The Rules require that responses to document requests “must
either state that inspection and related activities will be
permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for
objecting to the request, including the reasons.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 34(b)(2)(B). A party responding to document requests must
produce relevant documents that are in its possession, custody,
or control. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a).
Documents are in a party’s “possession, custody, or control” if
the party has the legal right to obtain the documents on demand.
See In re Bankers Tr. Co., 61 F.3d at 469; In re Envision
Healthcare
Corp.
Sec.
Litig.,
No.
3:17-CV-01112,
2020
WL
12572931, at *6 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 14, 2020). A court may compel
a party to sign a release authorization. See, e.g., Boegh v.
Harless, No. 5:18-CV-00123, 2021 WL 1923365, at *6 (W.D. Ky. May
13, 2021). The Rules require pro se litigants to personally sign
answers to interrogatories and document requests. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(g); Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(5).
Fields
has
not
asserted
a
valid
objection
to
Perry’s
interrogatories. See 8B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Federal
Practice
Update)(cataloging
and
Procedure
valid
§
2174
objections).
8
(3d
ed.
Fields’
April
answers
2021
to
Case 1:17-cv-01190-SHM-cgc Document 68 Filed 01/20/22 Page 9 of 13
PageID 1351
Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, 12, and 14 are inadequate. The Court
ORDERS Fields to supplement his answers to Interrogatory Nos.
2,3, 4, 12, and 14 within 30 days.
Fields
has
not
asserted
a
valid
objection
to
Perry’s
document requests. See 8B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Federal
Practice
and
Procedure
§
2213
(3d
ed.
April
2021
Update)(cataloging valid objections). He has not made requested
documents available and has refused to sign necessary release
forms.
The Court ORDERS Fields to produce responsive documents
that he has a legal right to obtain on demand within 30 days,
even if obtaining those documents requires Fields to sign the
name “Charles Orlando Fields.” It ORDERS Fields to sign the
release authorization forms.
The Court declines to award Perry the expenses incurred in
making the Motions to Compel Discovery. When a court grants a
motion to compel discovery, it must award expenses to the moving
party unless there are circumstances that make such an award
unjust.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Fields is proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis. The award of expenses would be
unjust. See Jayne v. Bosenko, No. 2:08-CV-02767, 2014 WL 2801201,
at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 19, 2014)(declining to impose sanctions
under Rule 37(a)(5) against a pro se prisoner proceeding in forma
pauperis because doing so would be unjust). Fields is admonished
that the Court has now ordered him to comply with discovery
9
Case 1:17-cv-01190-SHM-cgc Document 68 Filed 01/20/22 Page 10 of 13
PageID 1352
requirements. Failure to obey the Court’s orders may result in
sanctions that include dismissal of this action without further
notice, default judgment, and/or contempt of court proceedings.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A).
The First Motion to Compel is DENIED as moot. The Second
Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
V.
Motion to Compel the Court
On January 6, 2021, Fields filed a motion demanding that
the Court “read, comprehend, consider, and rule upon all motions,
orders, notices, evidence and pleadings filed with this Court .
. . .” (ECF No. 66) (the “Motion to Compel the Court”). The Court
has read all relevant pleadings and has decided all outstanding
motions.
VI.
The Motion to Compel the Court is DENIED as moot.
Service Issues
There has been no service on Dietz or Mathews. Rule 4(m) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part:
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the
complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own
after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action
without prejudice against that defendant or order that
service be made within a specified time. But if the
plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court
must extend the time for service for an appropriate
period.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides,
in pertinent part:
If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with
these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to
10
Case 1:17-cv-01190-SHM-cgc Document 68 Filed 01/20/22 Page 11 of 13
PageID 1353
dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless
the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal
under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under
this rule—except one for lack of jurisdiction,
improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule
19—operates as an adjudication on the merits.
The U.S. Marshals’ process receipt noted that Dietz and
Mathews were no longer employed at HCCF. (ECF No. 39.) More than
90 days have passed since the summonses were issued to Dietz and
Mathews on October 18, 2019. (D.E. 38.) For Fields to avail
himself of Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 4(c)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)—
i.e., to enlist the U.S. Marshal to serve process—Fields must
take reasonable steps to provide the Clerk of Court, and thus
the
U.S.
Marshal,
information
about
with
the
sufficiently
locations
of
specific
named
and
accurate
Defendants.
That
information is necessary to enable the U.S. Marshal to accomplish
service in a timely manner. See Byrd v. Stone, 94 F.3d 217, 219
(6th Cir. 1996) (“United States Marshal . . . must . . .
effectuate service upon the defendants, thereby relieving a
plaintiff of the burden to serve process once reasonable steps
have been taken to identify for the court the defendants named
in the complaint.”).
Nothing in the record shows that Fields has tried to cure
the deficient service of summonses on Mathews and Dietz. Fields
has not explained why service has not occurred. Fields has not
submitted a new or updated address for Dietz or Mathews. Fields
11
Case 1:17-cv-01190-SHM-cgc Document 68 Filed 01/20/22 Page 12 of 13
PageID 1354
has made only a single attempt to serve Dietz and Mathews.
Neither Fields’ pro se status nor his incarceration constitutes
good cause for the lack of service. See Rose v. U.S. Postal
Service, 352 Fed. Appx. 82, 84 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing McMasters
v. United States, 260 F.3d 814, 818 (7th Cir. 2001)).
Fields is ORDERED to show cause, within 30 days of the date
of
entry
of
this
order,
why
the
Complaints
should
not
be
dismissed without prejudice as to Dietz and Mathews for: (1)
Fields’ failure to take reasonable measures to effect timely
service on Dietz and Mathews; or (2) in the alternative, Fields’
failure to prosecute claims against Dietz and Mathews pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). If Fields fails to show cause, the
Court will dismiss the Complaints against Dietz and Mathews
without prejudice.
VII. Conclusion
1.
The Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED;
2.
The Motions for Extraordinary Relief are DENIED as
moot;
3.
The First Motion to Compel Discovery is DENIED as moot;
4.
The Second Motion to Compel Discovery is GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART;
5.
Fields is ORDERED to supplement his responses to
Interrogatory Nos. 2,3, 4, 12, and 14 within 30 days
of the date of entry of this order and sign those
responses;
6.
Fields is ORDERED to produce responsive documents that
he has a legal right to obtain on demand within 30
12
Case 1:17-cv-01190-SHM-cgc Document 68 Filed 01/20/22 Page 13 of 13
PageID 1355
days of the date of entry of this order, even if
obtaining those documents requires him to sign the
name “Charles Orlando Fields”;
7.
Fields is ORDERED to sign the release authorizations
propounded by Perry;
8.
The Motion to Compel the Court is DENIED as moot; and
9.
Fields is ORDERED to show cause, within 30 days of the
date of entry of this order, why the Complaints should
not be dismissed without prejudice as to Dietz and
Mathews.
SO ORDERED this 20th day of January, 2022.
/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
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?