McPeek v. Klimek

• Court: District Court, D. South Dakota
• Decided: April 28, 2021
• Docket: 4:20-cv-04078
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

TRAVIS R. MCPEEK, 4:20-CV-04078-RAL Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DOC DEFENDANTS’ vs. MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND ORDER ON MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS CO MEYERS, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; CO LUCERO, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; UM KLIMEK, EAST CRAWFORD UNIT MANAGER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; LT. DYKSTRA, OFFICER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; UNKNOWN MAIL ROOM OFFICER(S), CORRECTIONAL OFFIER(S) AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, IN HIS/HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; WARDEN BRENT FLUKE, WARDEN AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; WARDEN DARIN YOUNG, WARDEN AT THE “HILL”/OR SIOUX FALLS PRISON, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MARK PAYER, JAIL ADMINISTRATOR/OFFICER AT YANKTON COUNTY JAIL, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; Defendants.

Plaintiff Travis P. McPeek filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. Defendants CO Meyer, CO Lucero, UM Klimek, Lt. Dystrka, Unknown Mail Room Officers,

Warden Brent Fluke, and Warden Darin Young (DOC Defendants) move to stay discovery until this Court rules on the their forthcoming motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Doc. 36. “Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, not simply from liability” and protects officials from pretrial discovery. Janis v. Biesheuvel, 428 F.3d 795, 800 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)). “Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526 (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). Because DOC Defendants claim they are filing a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, staying discovery is appropriate. McPeek moves to subpoena witnesses that will testify to his allegations regarding prison conditions. Doc. 34. Next, McPeek moves to compel DOC Defendants to answer his interrogatories. Doc. 41. Because discovery regarding McPeek’s claims against the DOC Defendants has been stayed, his motions, Docs. 34, 41, are denied. Finally, McPeek moves to file inmates’ affidavits, Doc. 39, which will be granted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that DOC Defendants’ motion to stay discovery, Doc. 36, is granted. It is further ORDERED that McPeek’s motions for subpoena and to compel, Docs. 34, 41, are denied. It is finally

ORDERED that McPeek’s motion to submit affidavits, Doc. 39, is granted. DATED April as”, 2021. BY THE COURT:

ROBERTO A. LANGE CHIEF JUDGE