United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
June 9, 2005.
EUGENE HORTON, Plaintiff,
DONALD SNYDER, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: CLIFFORD PROUD, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court are plaintiff's motion to compel defendant
Hinsley to respond to plaintiff's request for admissions, and his
brief in support of the subject motion. (Docs. 245 and 246).
Also before the Court is defendant Hinsley's response. (Doc. 247).
Defendant Hinsley did respond to plaintiff's request for
admissions, but he objected to requests 1, 2, 3 and 8. Therefore,
the Court will only concern itself with those four requests.
Requests 1, 2 and 3:
Request 1 pertains to Hinsley's activities as acting warden and
warden from 1971 to 1997. Hinsley objected that the complaint
only pertains to the time period from March 17, 1998, to October
15, 2002, and pertains only to Hinsley's actions as assistant
warden (Hinsley did not become warden until after October 15,
2002). Requests 2 and 3 similarly seek information about
Hinsley's actions during that same time period relative to
repeated decisions to keep plaintiff in segregation, and Hinsley
asserts the same objections.
Plaintiff offers no specific argument refuting Hinsley's
objections. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
36(a), Hinsley's objections are well taken. The requests do not
relate to Hinsley's actions as a defendant, and are thus not the
proper subject matter for requests for admissions; rather, they are better addressed by an
interrogatory. Therefore, Hinsley's objections to requests 1, 2
and 3 are sustained.
Request 8 pertains to 2002-2003 when Hinsley was warden, and
his ability or inability to expunge disciplinary actions taken in
1997, and his authority to correct the rationale for keepig
plaintiff in segregation. Hinsley again objects that the
complaint only pertains to his activities as assistant warden and
the time period from March 17, 1998, to October 15, 2002. Again,
the Court sustains Hinsley's objections. The request does not
relate to Hinsley's actions as a defendant, and is thus not the
proper subject matter of a request for admission; rather, it is
better addressed by an interrogatory
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel
(Doc. 245) is DENIED in all respects.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.