Hall v. N.H. Prison

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: April 11, 1995
• Docket: CV-94-405-L
• Status: Published

Opinion

Hall v. N.H. Prison CV-94-405-L 04/11/95 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven E. Hall

v. #C-94-405-L

Warden, N.H. State Prison

ORDER

Currently before the court are two motions submitted by

plaintiff, Steven E. Hall. The first is a motion to compel

production of documents. Doc 20. The second is a motion for

jury trial. Doc. 22. No objections to either motion have been

filed by the defendants.

Plaintiff is an inmate at the New Hampshire State Prison,

and brought suit against the defendants claiming he was denied

procedural due process at a disciplinary hearing and was denied

access to his various legal papers and religious materials.

In seeking discovery in his case, on January 23, 1995

plaintiff filed a reguest for documents with defendants seeking

originals or copies of:

1. Disciplinary reports written by Mike Sokolov, dated March 15, 1994. Hearing case No. 1023-94.

2. Reguest slip sent to hearings officer Sgt. Wilson concerning tape recording and witnesses dated March 23, 1994 .

3. Notice of hearing dated March 22, 1994. Hearing case No. 1023-94

4. Reguest slip, dated April 7, 1994, to Viola Lunderville to appeal hearing result of March 25, 1994.

5. Defendants' log of showers and recreation for J-Tier (punitive segregation) from April 26, 1994 to April 30, 1994 .

6. Defendants' log showing the names of inmates located on J-Tier (punitive segregation) from April 26, 1994 to April 30, 1994.

7. Disciplinary report written by Cpl. Frank T. Cassidy dated April 26, 1994. Hearing case No. 94-238.

8. Hearing decision for case No. 94-238.

9. Defendants' log showing the reason plaintiff was removed from J-3 and placed in shower area at 2136 hours on April 26, 1994.

10. Medical progress notes for plaintiff for the day of April 2 6, 1994.

11. The notary log for the month of January, 1994 showing legal papers plaintiff had notarized.

12. Reguest slips for service of notary during the month of January, 1994.

13. Medical Prescriptions that were in effect from January, 1994 through March, 1994.

14. All property receipts from August 20, 1991 through January 20, 1995.

15. Copies of any and all disciplinary actions that have been taken against defendants for their treatment toward inmates.

16. Copies of any and all litigation that have been filed against defendants concerning issues presented in this case.

Following the failure of defendants to provide the reguested

2 information, on February 27, 1995 plaintiff filed the instant

motion to compel production of documents.

I. Motion to compel production of documents (Doc. 20)

The underlying purpose of the "modern discovery doctrine" is

to allow parties to obtain "the fullest possible knowledge of the

issues and facts before trial." Le Barron v. Haverhill

Cooperative School Dist., 127 F.R.D. 38, 40 (D.N.H. 1989) (citing

8 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil §

2001 at 13) . Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) (1) seeks to

tailor discovery to the issues involved in the particular case

and prevent over discovery.

Local Rule 11(d) further provides that "[u]nless within ten

(10) days after the filing of a motion and memorandum by a party,

the other party files written objection thereto with memorandum,

he shall be deemed to have waived objection, and the court may

act on the motion."

In the case at hand, as defendants have failed to respond to

plaintiff's reguest, the court will properly act on plaintiff's

motion.

With respect to reguests numbered 1-14, the court opines the

documentation sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. However, as reguests numbered

3 15 and 16 appear not to be limited in time or scope, compliance

with these requests would impose an unreasonable burden on

defendants.

Based on a review of plaintiff's requests and the issues

presented in this case, defendants shall produce documents or

information pertaininq to plaintiff's requests numbered 1-14

above.

II. Objection to pretrial order dated January 19, 1994 (Doc. 22)

On January 18, 1995 Maqistrate Judqe William Barry conducted

a pretrial conference in relation to plaintiff's suit. As a

result of the conference, Maqistrate Judqe Barry issued a

pretrial order statinq, inter alia, that the type of trial would

be a bench. Plaintiff now objects to the "bench" desiqnation,

requestinq, instead, that his claims be tried by a jury.

As plaintiff has provided indications, within his complaint,

that he seeks relief for his claims in the form of an injunction,

compensatory or punitive damaqes, plaintiff is entitled to a jury

trial. See Perez-Serrano v. De Leon-Velez, 868 F.2d 30, 34 (1st

Cir. 1989) ("Where a plaintiff seeks both damaqes and injunctive

relief under § 1983, the jury must assess liability as well as

damaqes.")

4 CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing discussion, plaintiff's motion to

compel production of documents (Doc. 20) is granted in part and

denied in part. Further, plaintiff's motion for jury trial (Doc.

22) is granted.

April 11, 1995

Martin F. Loughlin Senior Judge

Steven E. Hall Christopher P. Reid, Esg