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.

Collins v. Ndoc

United States District Court, D. Nevada

September 17, 2014

RONALD COLLINS, Plaintiff,
v.
NDOC, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

WILLIAM G. COBB, Magistrate Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

At all times relevant to the allegations in this action, Plaintiff was an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC). (Amended Complaint, Doc. # 14.)[1] The events giving rise to this litigation took place while Plaintiff was housed at Lovelock Correctional Center (LCC), and Plaintiff is currently housed at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC). ( Id. ) Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, brings this action against Defendants LCC Warden LeGrand, and Correctional Officers Bail, Park, Ball and Baros, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. (See Screening Order, Doc. # 11.)[2]

District Judge Robert Jones' January 6, 2014, screening order concluded that Plaintiff's amended complaint stated colorable claims for retaliatory destruction or loss of property under the First Amendment, and deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment relating to conditions of confinement. (Doc. # 11 at 4-6.) The court dismissed all claims alleging violations of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, all claims for injunctive relief, and all claims against Defendants in their official capacity. ( Id. ) In addition, the court dismissed Defendants NDOC, McDaniel, and Emanuel. ( Id. at 8.)

II. MOTION TO COMPEL

This court conducted a hearing on Plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. # 64) on September 5, 2014. (See, Minutes, Doc. # 96.)[3] The motion was granted in part and denied in part ( id. ) The Defendants were directed to provide certain supplemental documentation. On September 15, 2014, Defendants submitted a Notice to the Court Regarding Defendants' Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents." (Doc. # 95.) This order discusses issues concerning the adequacy of Defendants' supplemental responses to Requests for Production (RFP) 5, 14 and 15. (Doc. # 95 at 2.)

III. DISCUSSION

The Notice Defendants filed as to Request for Production (RFP) numbers 5, 14 and 15 addressed additional documentation the Defendants provided in accordance with the court's disposition of the discovery dispute as to those requests. Request # 5, which was similar to request numbers 14 and 15, sought production of reports or memoranda which pertains to LCC procedures regarding opening of inmate cell doors if the inmate who was then in the "day room" needed to use the toilet. Plaintiff's request and Defendants' response read as follows:

Request for Production No. 5:
All policy's (sic) reports or memorandums (sic) instructions to staff that require staff to open inmate's cell doors if they need to use the toilet.
Response to Request for Production No. 5:
Objection, assumes facts not admitted or in evidence. Objection, overly broad and vague with respect to time frame.
Notwithstanding these objections and without waiving them, Defendant is unable to locate any such specific policy, report or memo which states when correctional staff is required to open a cell door for an inmate to use the toilet. Defendant states LCC Operational Procedure 418 "Institutional Court Procedure" may be responsive to this request, ...

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.