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.

Mitts v. Martin

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

December 14, 2016

JOECEPHUS MITTS, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. PHIL MARTIN, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          DONALD G. WILKERSON United States Magistrate Judge.

         Now pending before the Court is the Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for Appointment of Counsel filed by Plaintiff, Joecephus Mitts (Docs. 73 and 75). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Compel is FOUND AS MOOT IN PART, GRANTED IN PART, AND DENIED IN PART, and the Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.

         Motion to Compel (Doc. 73)

         In this motion, Plaintiff complains about discovery responses he received in response to requests to produce and interrogatories that were propounded on both the Wexford Defendants (Dr. Hector Garcia and John Coe) and the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) Defendants (Dr. Phil Martin, Stephen Duncan, Randall Baylor, Bradley Rue, Thomas Simmons, and C/O Zwilling). Insofar as Plaintiff's motion is directed at the Wexford Defendants, the Court finds that it is MOOT as both Defendant Garcia and Defendant Coe were dismissed from this action on September 22, 2016 (see Doc. 102). The Court, however, shall consider the motion insofar as it is directed at the IDOC defendants.

         Although somewhat unclear, the Court gleans that Plaintiff finds the IDOC Defendants' responses to his written discovery requests insufficient. As it is unclear whether Plaintiff is complaining about Defendants' responses in their entirety or complaining about their responses to discrete requests, the Court, out of an abundance of caution, reviews each of Plaintiff's requests, and Defendants' response thereto, as set forth below:

1. Request No. 1: Electronically store information and tangible things. Or entering onto land. For inspection and other purposes. From May 14, 2014 between 2:30 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. at Lawrence health care [sic].
Response: These Defendants object to this Request as it is confusing. If Plaintiff is requesting a videotape taken at Lawrence Healthcare in accordance with Rule 26(b)(1) it is also irrelevant to the allegations contained in the complaint [and] is not proportional to the needs of this case.
Ruling: The Court finds that this request is confusing and, as such, finds that Defendant's objection based on confusion appropriate. Plaintiff's request to compel any further response to this request is DENIED.
2. Request No. 2: Video surveillance of Lawrence Healthcare back door dated May 14, 2014 between 2:30 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. [sic].
Response: These Defendants object to this Request. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) the information requested is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case.
Ruling: Although this objection was appropriate prior to the filing of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, said request could be relevant and proportional to the needs of the case as Plaintiff is proceeding on an excessive force and failure to protect claim related to an alleged assault that took place on May 14, 2014 near the backdoor of the healthcare unit. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel as to this request is GRANTED. Defendants are ORDERED to supplement their response (or objection) to this request for production by December 28, 2016.
3. Request No. 3: State the duties of defendants Bayor, Warden Duncan, insofar as they pertain to providing in particular, and other high-level prison officials who are designated to decide disciplinary duty to conduct at least a minimal investigation any alleged staff assault [sic].
Response: These Defendants object to Plaintiff's Request. It is not clear what Plaintiff is requesting.
Ruling: The Court finds that this request is confusing and, as such, finds that Defendant's objection based on confusion appropriate. Plaintiff's request to compel any ...

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.