Davis, James v. Meisner, Michael et al

Filing 111

ORDER denying plaintiff's 99 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 9/8/2017. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JAMES JERMAINE DAVIS,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
15-cv-268-slc
MICHAEL MEISNER, et al.,
Defendants.

Pro se plaintiff James Davis is proceeding in this case on (1) Eighth Amendment claims against
prison officers at Columbia Correctional Institution related to how they handled his cell removal and
medical care following a suicide attempt, and (2) a First Amendment claim against defendant Sandra
Ashton related to her issuance of conduct reports. Currently before me is Davis’s Motion to

Compel (dkt. 99), which I am denying.
Davis seeks an order compelling defendants to provide further responses to two discovery
requests. First, Davis wants defendants to produce more documents and information related to
the his special placement need (SPN) request against Ashton. Davis explains that he requested
this information because it relates to his retaliation claim against Ashton. He acknowledges that
defendants produced an Investigation Report created by Lieutenant Morrison, which referenced
certain interviews Morrison conducted, but further explains that defendants refuse to turn over
Morrison’s notes or the names of the people Morrison interviewed. However, defendants
represent that they produced all documents in their possession related to Davis’s request for an
SPN against Ashton, and that Morrison’s investigation did not go further than the information
they already provided. Because Davis has not submitted any evidence suggesting that more
documents or information exists, I am denying his request.

Second, Davis seeks an order compelling defendants to provide information about an
investigation conducted by David Melby regarding Davis’s complaints that Ashton was
retaliating against him. In particular, Davis requests the names, job titles, and duties of staff
members at Columbia whom Melby spoke with about Davis’s retaliation complaints against
Ashton. Defendants represent that they produced all documents in their possession about
Melby’s investigation and point out that Melby is not a party to this lawsuit so they do not have
that information. Davis persists, arguing that Melby no longer works at Columbia and that the
defendants do possess the information he seeks because they have access to Melby’s investigation
file. However, Davis has not submitted any evidence that suggests that Melby’s investigation
included additional documents that defendants (or, more generally, the DOC) possess. If Davis’s
believes that Melby conducted interviews, I am confident in his ability to locate Melby to
request information from him, either informally or by issuing him a subpoena in accordance with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the procedures I laid out in the Trial Preparation Order
(dkt. 99).

ORDER
It is ORDERED that plaintiff James Davis’s Motion to Compel (dkt. 99) is DENIED.

Entered this 8th day of September, 2017.

BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

2