United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Anthony D. Williams, #14113-112, Plaintiff,
Ms. Loretta Lynch, Attorney General; Mr. Travis Bragg, C.E.O. Warden; Ian Connor, National Inmate Appeal Coordinator; M. Holliday, Chief Dietitian; M. Furman, Associate Warden; P. Kelly, Associate Warden; Mr. Hicks, Institutional Captain; S.K. Brosier, Admin Remedy Coordinator; Mr. Rich, CMC Coordinator; T. Whitehead, Unit Manager; J. Ackerman, Manager; Mrs. Roberts, Manager; Mrs. Bennett, Secretary; Ms. Prince, Correctional Officer; J. Onuoha; Mr. Padilla, Food Service Administrator; John/Jane Doe, Designation and Sentence Computation Unit Team; Ms. Murberry; United States of America; Mr. Cox; Mr. Parra; Mr. Davis, Unit Manager; and Mr. Rodriguez, Defendants.
V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge.
D. Williams (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, brings this action alleging a violation of
his constitutional rights while at the Federal Correctional
Institution located in Bennettsville, South Carolina. He has
since been transferred to other institutions and is currently
housed at Federal Medical Center- Devens. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary
judgment, on November 6, 2017. [ECF No. 113]. As Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975),
on November 6, 2017, advising him of the importance of the
motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response
by December 8, 2017. [ECF No. 114].
December 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a document that was titled
“Plaintiff's Response in Opposition, ” but
which did not address any of the substantive arguments of
Defendants. [ECF No. 128]. The document instead alleged that
Plaintiff needed discovery, that he was transferred to
another institution in retaliation, and that he needed
additional time to respond to Defendants' motion.
March 6, 2018, the court issued an order denying Plaintiff
additional time for discovery and noting that the discovery
he requested was not necessary to respond to Defendants'
motion. [ECF No. 137]. This matter comes before the court on
the following motions by Plaintiff: (1) motion for
reconsideration of Plaintiff's past motions [ECF No.
143]; (2) motion for an additional copy of Defendants'
motion to dismiss [ECF No. 144]; and, (3) motion for all
correspondence to be sent by certified mail [ECF No. 145].
Motion for Reconsideration
motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff recounts the same
arguments he has repeatedly made in this court, about why he
believes he needs discovery before he can respond to
Defendants' motion. He first argues that he needs sworn
affidavits from other inmates. However, that is not
information he can request from Defendants. In addition, the
court does not make credibility determinations on a motion
for summary judgment; therefore, at this stage, Plaintiff
does not need multiple affidavits to corroborate his own
sworn statement. Additionally, to the extent he seeks
information about allegedly unconstitutional conditions prior
to his alleged injuries, such information is not relevant to
Plaintiff's causes of action.
also claims he needs all medical records, “not just the
medical records that benefit the Defendants.” There is
no evidence that Defendants have selected specific medical
records, but instead have provided Plaintiff's full BOP
medical records while at FCI-Bennetsville. [ECF No. 113-16].
In fact, Defendants have attached a particularly voluminous
set of medical records. Although Plaintiff states that he
needs hospitalization records, it is not clear that
Defendants have copies of all of these records. Plaintiff may
state in an affidavit what he believes the medical records
will show and attach it to his response to Defendants'
to the extent that Plaintiff seeks a reconsideration of the
court's denial of his motion to appoint counsel, he has
not shown any change in circumstance. Plaintiff's motion
for reconsideration [ECF No. 143] is denied.
Motion for a Copy of Defendants' Motion
claims that employees of the Bureau of Prisons intentionally
damaged or destroyed part of Defendants' motion for
summary judgment. [ECF No. 144]. Plaintiff has not shown why
he has not been able to determine how much of Defendants'
motion he is missing since he received it on March 20, 2018.
In the interest of time, the undersigned orders Defendants to
mail Plaintiff an additional copy of ECF No. 113. However,
Plaintiff is advised that he should be working on his
response immediately with the materials he has, as by his own
statements it appears that he is equally to blame for any
delay in responding. Plaintiff's deadline to file a
response remains May 26, 2018, as the court has already
provided Plaintiff with numerous generous extensions, and he
has had access to his legal materials since March 20, 2018.
Motion for Legal Mail to be Certified
requests that all of his mail be sent by certified mail, as
he claims he does not timely receive his mail. Plaintiff has
cited no authority for such a requirement. Plaintiffs motion
to have all ...