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.

Amaker v. Goord

August 9, 2006

ANTHONY D. AMAKER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
GLENN S. GOORD, COMMISSIONER, NYS DOCS; LUCIEN J. LECLAIRE, DEP.COMMISSIONER; R. GIRDICH, SUPT.; GEORGE DUNCAN, SUPT.; LESTER N. WRIGHT, MD; G. KEINERT, DEP. SUPT.; J. MARTIN; N. BEZIO; CO SPINNER; CO B. LADUKE; W. TROMBLEY; CO P. DABIEW; CO MCCASLAND, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Norman A. Mordue, Chief U.S. District Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER

Presently before the Court are several motions filed by pro se plaintiff Anthony D. Amaker. Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility.

In his complaint in this action, plaintiff alleges that he was improperly subjected to a DNA sampling procedure in September, 2002, while incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility.

Dkt. No. 1 at 5-7. Plaintiff also claims that his civil and constitutional rights were violated in the course of disciplinary proceedings arising out of the sampling procedure. Id. at 7-9.*fn1 For a complete statement of plaintiff's claims, reference is made to the complaint.

A. Motion for Protective Order

Plaintiff filed a request for relief, styled as a "Motion for Protective Order," by which he seeks an order of this Court restraining defendants from interfering with the conduct of discovery in this action. Dkt. No. 115 at 1. Plaintiff also seeks leave to depose ten of the thirty-five individual defendants. Id. at 1, 3-6.

Defendants have filed papers in opposition. Dkt. No. 117.

Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party from whom discovery is sought may seek a protective order for the purpose of shielding certain persons or information from discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). The party seeking a protective order must demonstrate that the requested discovery should be barred or limited in order to protect the movant from "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense." Id.

By his motion, plaintiff does not identify any discovery demands served by defendants which are in any way objectionable. Rather, plaintiff merely asserts that defendants have interfered with plaintiff's ability to pursue his claims in this action and seeks an order restraining defendants from "annoyance, oppression and undue burden or expense to complete discovery." Dkt. No. 115 at 1. As defendants note, this vague allegation of wrongdoing, which is wholly unsupported by any evidence or even explanation, is not sufficient to warrant the granting of judicial relief. This aspect of plaintiff's motion is denied.

Plaintiff also seeks leave to conduct audiotape depositions of ten defendants. The costs of discovery remain the obligation of each party, notwithstanding the granting of an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Dkt. No. 5; see also Rule 5.4(a) of the Local Rules of Practice of the Northern District. Several methods of discovery, including interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and depositions are available to parties. Each method of discovery entails certain costs and imposes various burdens on the parties. While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize the use of audiotape to record a deposition, the deposition must nevertheless be taken before "an officer authorized to administer oaths...." Fed.R.Civ.P. 28(a). The costs associated with the retention of a person qualified to preside over the deposition proceedings and the costs of the audiotapes are not insignificant.

Plaintiff's motion does not identify the ten individuals whose depositions he seeks. Moreover, while plaintiff claims that he "can pay for the depositions," the motion is not supported by a certified copy of plaintiff's inmate account statement or other financial records demonstrating his ability to pay the costs associated with conducting and recording the requested depositions. Accordingly, this aspect of plaintiff's motion is denied.

B. Motions for Declaratory Relief and Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff has filed two motions by which he seeks injunctive relief. Dkt. Nos. 122, 123.*fn2 Both motions set forth claims arising out of plaintiff's confinement at Attica Correctional Facility relating, inter alia, 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.