Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mitchell v. Beasley

July 12, 2006

RANDY MITCHELL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHRISTINE BEASLEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge

ORDER

This cause is before the court for consideration of various pending motions including: the plaintiff's motion to compel [d/e 72]; the parties motions for summary judgment [d/e 75, 79, 84]; the plaintiff's motion to supplement [d/e 78] and the plaintiff's motion for a court order [d/e 80].

I. BACKGROUND

The plaintiff, Randy Mitchell, submitted his original complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, on January 22, 2003. The plaintiff's first motion to amend his complaint was granted on January 21, 2004. The plaintiff's second motion to amend his complaint was granted on September 21, 2004.

On August 31, 2005, the court found that the plaintiff had one surviving claim: that Defendant Dallas violated the plaintiff's due process rights when he falsely indicated that the plaintiff refused to appear for a disciplinary hearing concerning a November 26, 2001 ticket accusing him of misconduct. See August 31, 2005 Court Order. The plaintiff stated that the defendant denied him an opportunity to be heard on the charges.

On October 11, 2005, the court denied the plaintiff's third motion to amend his complaint based on undue delay and futility. See October 11, 2005 Court Order.

II. MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

The plaintiff has entitled his motion "motion of discovery" and it has been docketed as a motion to compel discovery. [d/e 72]. Nonetheless, this is not a proper motion to compel. The plaintiff appears to be asking the court to obtain discovery for the plaintiff. For instance, the plaintiff says some of his grievances are missing and he cannot demonstrate that he exhausted his administrative remedies. The plaintiff also argues in favor of his surviving claim.

First, it is the plaintiff's responsibility to conduct his own discovery. Second, the issue of exhaustion is not before the court, and third, the plaintiff has already submitted copies of the relevant disciplinary report and grievances to the court. The motion is denied.

III. MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT

The plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file a supplement his complaint and has attached what appears to be another amended complaint. [d/e 78] The plaintiff does not state a clear reason for filing an additional complaint other than the fact that he is not a trained lawyer. The plaintiff asks the court to "take all the evidence on all my other complaints and put it with this complaint." (Motion, p. 2) The plaintiff also is seeking to add Defendants Calvin Taylor, Patty Reider and Guy Pierce to his complaint.

On August 31, 2005, when the court found the plaintiff had one surviving claim against Defendant Dallas, it also noted that "the allegations against Defendant Dallas are the most difficult to interpret from the plaintiff's complaint." See August 31, 2005 Court Order. It was clear that the plaintiff was alleging Defendant Dallas sat on two adjustment committees that considered two disciplinary tickets against the plaintiff. During the second hearing, Defendant Dallas changed the inmate number on the ticket because it was incorrect. Dallas and others then expunged the ticket because it was repetitive. It is clear from the evidence before the court that two tickets were written by two different officers for the same incident. Therefore, the second ticket was expunged by the defendant. The court found no violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights during this second hearing.

However, in the first hearing, the court found that the plaintiff had adequately alleged that Defendant Dallas denied him the opportunity to be heard on his disciplinary ticket when he falsely indicated that the plaintiff refused to appear for the hearing. The court also noted that it was not clear whether the defendant was personally involved in this decision, and this would be a proper issue for summary judgment.

Based on the pending motion for summary judgment, it appears Defendant Dallas was not involved in the first hearing. Therefore the plaintiff is attempting to add the names of two defendants who were involved in the first hearing, Reider and Taylor. The plaintiff continues to allege that the second hearing somehow subjected him to "double jeopardy" even though the second ticket was expunged. The plaintiff alleges that Warden Guy Pierce signed off on all the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.