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.

Brown v. Dylag

August 18, 2008

NATHAN BROWN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DYLAG, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, GEORGE STRUEBEL, SUPERVISOR INMATE GRIEVANCE PROGRAM, SKOWASKI, CORRECTION OFFICER, AND J. ZIOLKOWSKI, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Leslie G. Foschio United States Magistrate Judge

DECISION and ORDER

90-A-3219

JURISDICTION

This case was referred to the undersigned by Honorable William M. Skretny on August 18, 2006 for nondispositive pretrial matters. The matter is presently before the court on Plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. No. 85), filed February 27, 2008.

BACKGROUND and FACTS*fn1

Plaintiff Nathan Brown ("Plaintiff"), commenced this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 4, 2005, by filing the original complaint (Doc. No. 1) ("Complaint") against Defendant Correctional Officer Dylag ("Dylag"). Plaintiff subsequently filed three amended complaints including the First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 3) on November 23, 2005, against Inmate Grievance Program Supervisor George Struebel ("Struebel"), and Dylag, the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 5) on April 19, 2006, against Correctional Officer Skowaski ("Skowaski"), and Struebel, and the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 29) on February 14, 2007, against Struebel and Correctional Officer J. Ziolkowski ("Ziolkowski"). The action was discontinued as against Dylag on April 19, 2006, and as against Skowaski on February 14, 2007, leaving only Struebel and Ziolkowski (together, "Defendants"), as defendants to this action.

In particular, Plaintiff alleges that between September 27, 2005 and October 9, 2005, while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility in Attica, New York, Defendants violated Plaintiff's rights under the First, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments when Defendants, in order to coerce Plaintiff into trafficking narcotics for Ziolkowski, confined Plaintiff to his cell so as to deprive Plaintiff of his meals, subjected Plaintiff to an unwarranted beating, seriously injuring Plaintiff's left eye and vision, interfered with Plaintiff's attempts to obtain medical treatment for his injuries after the beating, threatened Plaintiff with more physical harm if Plaintiff reported the attack, and obstructed Plaintiff's attempts to file grievances pertaining to such incidents. Defendants's answer to the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 67), was filed on December 7, 2007.

On January 2, 2008, Plaintiff served Defendants with Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents - Seventh Set (Doc. No. 74) ("Demand for Documents"), seeking four categories of documents. On February 27, 2008, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel (Doc. No. 85) ("Plaintiff's motion"), seeking an order compelling Defendants to produce documents responsive to the Demand for Documents. The motion is supported by the attached Brief in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. No. 85-2) ("Plaintiff's Memorandum"), and Affirmation of Nathan Brown in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery ("Plaintiff's Affirmation"). In opposition to Plaintiff's motion, Defendants filed on March 13, 2008, the Declaration of Assistant Attorney General Darren Longo (Doc. No. 87) ("Longo Declaration"). On March 21, 2008, Plaintiff filed in further support of Plaintiff's motion Plaintiff's Answer to Defendants' Response to Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. No. 88) ("Plaintiff's Reply"). Oral argument was deemed unnecessary.

Based on the following, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

As stated, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to provide documents responsive to all four categories of information requested in the Demand for Documents. Specifically, the first category of demanded documents seeks

Those portions of the personnel files of Ziolkoswki that relate to the attack incident, the deprivation of meals incident, this incident, or that discloses (a) whether Ziolkowski was on any type of probationary or disciplinary status or subject to discipline, suspension, censure or warning in September-October 2005, (b) whether, prior to the dates of the incidents, Ziolkowski had ever been found to have used excessive force, to have possessed narcotics or unauthorized weapons, to have threatened any inmate with deadly or excessive force, or to have used inappropriate language in the presence of inmates, (c) whether at the time of the incidents there were any unresolved complaints pending against Ziolkowski to determine whether Ziolkowski had in the past used excessive force, possessed narcotics or unauthorized weapons, threatened inmates with deadly or excessive force or at gunpoint, or used inappropriate language in the presence of inmates.

Demand for Documents No. 1.

The second category of demanded ...


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.