United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
J. DALY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on several motions filed by the
parties. Each will be addressed in turn. First, Plaintiff
Willie Booker filed a Motion to Compel. (Doc. 60). Defendants
oppose the motion. (Doc. 71). Booker seeks to compel the
Defendants to respond to various written discovery requests
included in his Fourth Request for Production of Documents.
The motion to compel is hereby granted in part and denied in
¶2 of his Fourth Request for Production (Doc. 60-1, p.
3), Booker seeks “[a]ny and all IDOC [Illinois
Department of Corrections] policies, Directives, Regulations
that defines the job description of the: Director of the
IDOC, the Administrative Review Board, Clinical Service, Case
Worker, Internal Affairs, Chief Administrative Officer, and
office of inmate issues.” Defendants object to the
request, stating that the requested documents are irrelevant
to Booker's claims and the request is overbroad.
objection is sustained. Plaintiff is proceeding on a failure
to protect claim (Count 1) arising out of the November 2015
denial of protective custody, and a state law intentional
infliction of emotional distress claim (Count 4).
See Docs. 13-14. The Court agrees that Booker's
request for “policies, Directives, [and]
Regulations” pertaining to the specified issues is
overly broad and of questionable relevance. Defendants need
not supplement their answer.
¶3, Booker seeks “[a] copy of plaintiff['s]
medical records dating from October 17, 2016 through November
22, 2016. This shall include all documents pertaining to
plaintiff Booker['s] hunger strike.” Defendants
object to this request on the basis of relevancy, noting that
they already provided Booker with medical records from
December 28, 2015, through January 11, 2016. Defendants also
state that Booker is free to purchase the requested medical
records from the Menard Health Care Unit.
objection is sustained. The requested medical records involve
events that occurred nearly a year after the events that form
the basis of this lawsuit. If Booker desires said documents,
he may purchase them from the prison.
¶4, Booker requests “[a] copy of Internal Affairs
Sargent B. Anthony [sic] report in February 2015 regarding
plaintiff Booker being in fear of his life. This is for
failure to report claim.” Defendants object to this
request on the basis that Anthony is not a party to this
lawsuit, and cannot be ordered to produce documents.
Defendants then state that a report drafted by Anthony was
produced to Booker, which Booker then filed at Doc. 60-1, p.
objection to ¶4 is overruled. When responding to a Rule
34 request for production, a party must provide all
responsive documents that are reasonably available.
Novelty, Inc. v. Mountain View Mktg., Inc., 265
F.R.D. 370, 376 (S.D. Ind. 2009). Defendants state that they
did in fact produce the report to Booker; however, the
identified document appears to be an email from Anthony to
other Menard officials. As high ranking IDOC officials,
Defendants shall be required to produce the requested report.
If portions of the report contain sensitive information that
may pose an institutional security risk if disclosed,
Defendants may redact those portions.
¶5, Booker requests “[a] copy of any all [sic]
IDOC Policies, Directives, Regulations Setting Forth the
powers of the: Director of the IDOC, Administrative Review
Board, Clinical Service, Case Worker, Internal Affairs, Chief
Administrative Officer, and office of inmate issues.”
Defendants object to this request on the basis that it is
similar to ¶2 in that it is is overly broad and largely
irrelevant. The Court agrees. Booker's request at ¶5
is an overly broad compound question of marginal relevance.
Moreover, Defendants correctly note that state and local law
does not set the standards for whether a constitutional
violation has occurred. Thompson v. City of Chicago,
472 F.3d 444, 454 (7th Cir. 2006). Defendants' objection
¶8, Booker seeks “[a] copy of any and all
documents that the Ill. Dept. of Corr. received from the
Winnebago County Jail in 2004 regarding plaintiff
Booker.” Similarly, in ¶9, Booker requests all
documents received by IDOC from the Rockford Police
Department in 2004. Booker states that he needs such
documents because they inform “IDOC who Plaintiff
Booker is charged with killing.” Defendants argue that
the request is overbroad in time and scope, and irrelevant to
this case. Defendants' objection is sustained. The
requested documents were presumably drafted over ten years
prior to the events in this lawsuit. As such, the documents
have little if any probative value.
¶¶ 10, 11 and 12, Booker requests IDOC policies,
directives and regulations pertaining to the IDOC
classification system, inmates that are at risk of assault
and sex offender segregation. Defendants state they provided
Booker with the relevant policy on protective custody
procedures and that the rest of the requested documents are
irrelevant. The Court agrees with the Defendants.
Booker's requests are overbroad and much of the requested
documents would have little probative value. Defendants'
objections are sustained.
¶13, Booker requests “[a] copy of any and all IDOC
documents classifying plaintiff Booker as a sex
offender.” Defendants assert that the request is a
compound question, overly broad and irrelevant. Defendants
also state, “Defendants have already admitted that,
according to IDOC records, Plaintiff is a convicted sex
offender. This request serves no purpose to the instant
litigation other than to harass Defendants.”
request would presumably encompass any IDOC document that
identifies his criminal history. Such a request is overly
broad and of questionable relevance. Defendants'
objections are sustained.
Booker filed a motion for recruitment of counsel. (Doc. 61).
Booker states in his motion that he is incapable of
litigating the claims in this case without the assistance of
counsel. According to Booker, he is allowed little access to
the law library and he suffers from mental disabilities that
impede his ability to manage this lawsuit. Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court “may request an
attorney to represent any person unable to afford
counsel.” When faced with a motion for recruitment of
counsel, the Court applies a two part test: “(1) has
the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain
counsel or been effectively precluded ...