Griffith v. Brannick

JAMES F. GRIFFITH, Plaintiff, v. F. BRANNICK, D. HASKINS, YARBAR, DEVINE, E. DRADA, N. LYDAY, PHILLIPS, Defendants.

No. 1:17-cv-00194-TWP-MJD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

February 28, 2019

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S VERFIED MOTION TO RECONSIDER PARTS OF ORDER AT DOCKET NO. 104

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Verified Motion to Reconsider Parts of "Order on Plaintiff's Verified Fourth and Fifth Motions to Compel Discovery." [Dkt. 112.] On January 17, 2019, the Court issued its Order [Dkt. 104] on two motions: 1) Plaintiff's Verified Fourth Motion to Compel Discovery [Dkt. 87] and 2) Plaintiff's Verified Fifth Motion to Compel Discovery [Dkt. 93], granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motions. For the reasons set forth below, the Court now DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider.

I. Background

In this action, Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated at New Castle Correctional Facility, brings excessive use of force claims against correctional officer Defendants that he asserts occurred while he was housed at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility [Dkt. 5 at 1.] Plaintiff alleges that on June 2, 2016 Defendants dragged him to F cell house and carried him down the stairs out of the view of cameras. [Dkt. 5 at 2.] While Plaintiff was handcuffed, he contends Defendants body slammed, jumped on, and began beating him. [Dkt. 5 at 2.] In relevant part of Plaintiff's Verified Fourth and Fifth Motions to Compel, the Court granted the following discovery requests in its January 17, 2019 Order:

1). Plaintiff's Verified Fourth Motion is GRANTED IN PART as to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 11 to the limited extent that the Court directs Defendants to identify what inmate grievances, if any, were filed against them complaining of the use of physical force and detailing the alleged nature of that force between June 2, 2014 and June 2, 2017. Confidential or sensitive security information may be redacted. Contemporaneous with the production of these responses to Plaintiff, Defendants are ordered to provide copies of both the redacted and the unredacted grievance records in an ex-parte filing for in camera review.

2). The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 2 to the limited extent that the Court directs Defendants to produce any use of force reports they participated in creating in response to an inmate grievance or where medical care was provided to an inmate as a result of the interaction between June 2, 2014 and June 2, 2017. Confidential or sensitive security information may be redacted. Contemporaneous with the production of these redacted documents to Plaintiff, Defendants are ordered to provide copies of both the redacted and unredacted use of force reports in an ex-parte filing for in camera review.

[See Dkt. 104.]

Plaintiff timely filed his Verified Motion to Reconsider on February 7, 2019, urging the Court to reconsider the limitations placed upon 1). Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 11 involving inmate grievances filed for use of physical force between June 2, 2014 and June 2, 2017 and 2). Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 2 involving use of force reports Defendants developed in response to the aforementioned inmate grievances or inmates provided medical care as a result of physical force incidents within the same three-year period. [Dkt. 112 at 1.]

II. Legal Standard

Motions to reconsider serve a limited function, to be used, "where 'the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.' " Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). The parties may not introduce evidence previously available but unused in the prior proceeding or tender new legal theories. See In re Prince, 85 F.3d 314, 324 (7th Cir. 1996); Bally Export Corp. v. Balicar Ltd., 804 F.2d 398, 404 (7th Cir. 1986). A court may grant a motion to reconsider where a movant demonstrates a manifest error of law or fact. In re Prince, 85 F.3d at 324. A motion to reconsider is not an occasion to make new arguments. Granite State Ins. Co. v. Degerlia, 925 F.2d 189, 192 n.7 (7th Cir. 1991).

This is a difficult standard to meet: "Motions to reconsider are granted for 'compelling reasons,' such as a change in the law which reveals that an earlier ruling was erroneous, not for addressing arguments that a party should have raised earlier." Solis v. Current Dev. Corp., 557 F.3d 772, 780 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). It is accordingly "inappropriate to argue matters that could have been raised in prior motions" or to "rehash previously rejected arguments[.]" United States v. Zabka, No. 1:10-CV-1078, 2013 WL 9564253, at *2 (C.D.Ill. Aug. 19, 2013); accord, e.g., Caisse Nationale De Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1267, 1270 (7th Cir. 1996) ("Again we emphasize, apart from manifest errors of law, reconsideration is not for rehashing previously rejected arguments."); id. ("[A] motion to reconsider is not the appropriate vehicle to introduce new legal theories[.]"). This Court ultimately has "broad discretion" in deciding whether to grant a motion for reconsideration, Solis, 557 F.3d at 780, and for the reasons that follow, the Magistrate Judge exercises that discretion to DENY Plaintiff's motion.

III. Discussion

A. Inmate Grievances & Use of Force: Three Year Limitation

Plaintiff's motion moves the Court to reconsider its three-year time period limitation for Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 11 and Request for Production No. 2, disclosing inmate grievances concerning physical force and use of force reports stemming from such grievances or inmate medical care responding to physical force incidents between June 2, 2014 and June 2, 2017. [Dkt. 112 at 2.] Plaintiff asserted "the three year period adopted by the Court . . . has a very limited relevance to most Defendants, and will not help Plaintiff at all for Defendant Brannick." [Dkt. 112 at 2.] In this motion, Plaintiff claimed his alleged incident of excessive force, the very incident in the matter at hand, occurred on June 2, 2014; thus, any incidents of force involving Defendants would be "subsequent" to Plaintiff's incident. [Dkt. 112 at 2.] In the case of Defendant Brannick, Plaintiff asserted this officer no longer worked for Wabash Correctional Facility after 2014 and according to Plaintiff, Defendant Brannick was a "main" participant in his excessive force claim. [Dkt. 112 and 2.] Ultimately, Plaintiff seeks the Court to reconsider the current three-year timespan by amending it to the interval between June 2, 2011 and June 2, 2014. [Dkt. 112 at 2.]

Plaintiff's own filed Complaint alleged the incident occurred on June 2, 2016. [Dkt. 1 at 6-7.] Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents additionally mentioned June 2, 2016 through request of "[a]ll emails and written communications the Office of Investigation and DHU Unit Team staff sent to defendants . . . concerning the Plaintiff[,]"seeking discovery of the video footage of the cell house reassignment, and Plaintiff's Request for Admissions surrounding the cell escort circumstances [Dkt. 81-1 at 1; Dkt. 87 at 1; Dkt. 93-1 at 1.] Plaintiff submitted requests for the preservation of the cell escort video footage and clearly documented the date of the incident as June 2, 2016. [Dkt. 99 at 2.]

The Court weighed Plaintiff's Propounded Interrogatory No. 11 request, which originally sought all incidents of physical force Defendants used; the Court limited the scope of the discovery request to three years. [Dkt. 104 at 11-12.] Likewise, the Court weighed Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 2, which originally sought all use of force reports for the last eight years; the Court limited the scope of the discovery to those reports made in response to an inmate grievance or inmate provided medical care as a result of an interaction involving force over the three year period. [Dkt. 104 at 15-16.] The Court found the timeline between June 2, 2014 and June 2, 2017 to provide a sufficient opportunity for the Plaintiff to sample pre and post grievances raised concerning physical force and their related use of force reports as compared to the date of Plaintiff's alleged incident. The Court finds no justification to shift its three-year time period when Plaintiff's pleadings, discovery requests, discovery motions, spoliation motion, and exhibits identify June 2, 2016 as the date of his excessive force claim.

Therefore, the Motion to Reconsider the Court's ruling with regard to the limited timeframe set for discoverable information concerning Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 11 and Request for Production No. 2 is DENIED.

B. Other Inmate Grievances & Use of Force Reports Limitations

Plaintiff's motion argued that discovery of information about "Defendants' other/prior uses of force should not depend on whether the other prisoners filed a grievance or sought medical attention." [Dkt. 112 at 2.] Plaintiff contended that some prisoners may not file grievances out of fear of retaliation. [Dkt. 112 at 2.] Plaintiff acknowledged that the Court narrowed Plaintiff's discovery requests due to the fact that "use of force" may concern "any 'physical handling[.]'" [Dkt. 112 at 2.] However, Plaintiff believed there were other ways to limit discovery requests that would be conducive to allowing the Plaintiff the relevant information he needs for his excessive force claim such as limiting Interrogatory No. 11 and Request for Production to:

all offender escourts [sic] where the offender needed to be handcuffed and escourted [sic], after a radio/telephone/verbal call for additional correctional staff occurred; all cell extractions; all uses of force after or in response to offender-on-offender and/or

...