Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CARRINGTON KEYS, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-1570 Plaintiff, (JUDGE CAPUTO) JACQUELINE CARROLL, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM

Presently before the Court are numerous discovery motions in this matter. Following clarification and argument at a February 21, 2012 status conference, the Court now addresses these pending discovery motions below. I. Plaintiff's Motions to Compel Plaintiff Carrington Keys has four pending Motions to Compel Discovery in this case. (Docs. 41, 59, 100 and 127). Taken together, these Motions currently seek: (1) all

grievances filed against the Correctional Defendants, the action taken, responses, etc. from the years 2008 to 2010; (2) all grievances filed in the Restricted Housing Unit ("RHU") at State Correctional Institution ("SCI") Dallas from years 2009 to the present; (3) the disciplinary records of each Correctional Defendant between 2007 and 2010; (4) a signed copy of each Correctional Defendant's code of ethics; (5) any and all abuse reports, letters, and complaints filed against the Correctional Defendants from years 2007 to 2010; (6) the incident log from the SCI Dallas RHU for year 2009 to present; (7) the criminal and arrest records of each Corrections Defendant; (8) the KA and KB legal logbooks for January 2009

until Plaintiff's release from the RHU at SCI Dallas; (9) any and all request slips and grievances regarding problems with mail delivery (legal or otherwise), and tampering with mail at SCI Dallas from 2008 to April 29, 2010; (10) the KA and KB block visitor logbooks from June 2009 until Plaintiff's release from the RHU at SCI Dallas; and (11) the RHU property log for SCI Dallas and property inventory sheets (the DC-153 form) for Plaintiff Keys from April 29, 2010. The Corrections Defendants argue that many of the above requests are overbroad, irrelevant, and not highly probative to the extent they seek mere allegations of misconduct. Further, the Corrections Defendants argue that Plaintiff Keys does not have standing to assert the complaints of every inmate housed at SCI Dallas. Keys retorts that his requests go to the unconstitutional policies and practices at SCI Dallas, specifically that inmates were consistently attacked as a result of filing complaints and that the supervisory Defendants were aware of this practice and acquiesced. In support of this approach, Keys cites Beck v. City of Pittsburgh. 89 F.3d 966 (3d Cir. 1996). There, a plaintiff sued a police officer and his employer, the City of Pittsburgh, for excessive force utilized in the course of an arrest. Id. at 967. However, in that case, the plaintiff's action against the municipality under 42 U.S.C.

Download 45576.pdf

Pennsylvania Law