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.

Geissler v. Young

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division

August 15, 2017

RUSSELL GEISSLER, Plaintiff,
v.
LISA YOUNG, CAPTAIN OF SALUDA DORM; DENNIS BUSH, WARDEN, BROAD RIVER PRISON; BRIAN SMITH, LT. OVER SALUDA ON NIGHT SHIFT; McCLEAN, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT BRCI, Defendants.

          ORDER

          THOMAS E. ROGERS, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Presently before the court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. (Doc. #89). Defendants filed a response to the motion. (Doc. #97).

         In this motion, Plaintiff has complained about responses to Interrogatories #3, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12 presented to Defendant Bush. In this motion, Plaintiff requests that “. . . defendants be compelled to answer the questions to a more specific and acceptable standard. The Defendant claim that certain parts of the Interrogatories can be answered via S.C.D.C. Policy if Plaintiff takes the time to look them up. It was not the Plaintiff's request to what the policies are, it was the Plaintiff's request for yes and no answers.” (Doc. #89).

         Defendants filed a response stating that the motion to compel should be denied because Defendant Bush adequately responded to Plaintiff's discovery requests. (Doc. #97 at 4).[1] Additionally, Defendants assert that with regard to Plaintiff's complaint that the interrogatories were not answered with “yes” or “no” answers, no interrogatory requested such a response. Defendants argue that the responses are appropriately detailed to answer what they understand his questions to be or to direct Plaintiff to SCDC Policy and Procedures that provides the relevant information.

         With regard to the discovery requests addressed to Defendant Bush, Plaintiff refers specifically to Interrogatories #3, #4, #5, #8, #11, and #12. Each will be discussed below.

Interrogatory#3: Is it against policy and procedure to give more than one tray per meal time to an inmate?
Response: Upon information and belief, Plaintiff has access to the non-restricted policies and procedures of SCDC at his Institution's law library. Plaintiff is requested to see responsive Policies and Procedures of SCDC, including but not limited to Food Service Operations (ADM-16.05) and Employee-Inmate Relations (ADM-11.34), for information responsive to this Interrogatory.
To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks an admission, it is denied.

         Interrogatory #4: Is it against policy and procedure to share trade or sell one tray of an inmate to another inmate?

         Response: Upon information and belief, Plaintiff has access to the non-restricted policies and procedures of SCDC at this Institution's law library. Plaintiff is requested to see responsive Policies and Procedures of SCDC, including but not limited to Food Service Operations (ADM-16.05) and Employee-Inmate Relations (ADM-11.34), for information responsive to this Interrogatory.

         To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks an admission, it is denied.

         Interrogatory #5: Is it against policy and procedure to “take side” or help one inmate to collect financial assets from another as an employee of the South Carolina Dept. of Corrections?

         Response: Upon information and belief, Plaintiff has access to the non-restricted policies and procedures of SCDC at his Institution's law library. Plaintiff is requested to see responsive Policies and Procedures of SCDC, including but not limited to ...


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.