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.

Green v. Miller

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

March 9, 2015

VIRGIL R. GREEN (#189440), Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES G. MILLER, Defendant.

ORDER DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S JANUARY 7, 2015 MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (DE 28)

ANTHONY P. PATTI, Magistrate Judge.

A. Plaintiff's Complaint[1]

Virgil R. Green (#189440) is currently incarcerated at the MDOC's Kinross Correctional Facility (KCF) in Kincheloe, Michigan. See DE 29; see also www.michigan.gov/corrections, "Offender Search." On October 4, 2013, while incarcerated at Macomb Correctional Facility (MRF), Green filed a verified civil rights complaint against "Officer Miller, " described as a Gus Harrison Correctional Facility (ARF) Corrections Officer. See DE 1 at 1-8.[2] Defendant has since been identified as James G. Miller. DE 10.

The facts underlying Plaintiff's complaint begin on July 29, 2012 and continue at least through October 1, 2012. DE 1 ¶¶ 7-38. Plaintiff sets forth five (5) causes of action. DE 1 ¶¶ 39-43. He seeks declaratory relief, compensatory damages and punitive damages, as well as an award of costs, expenses and interest on any judgment awarded. DE 1 at 7.[3]

B. Defendant's Dispositive Motion

Defendant Miller filed a motion for summary judgment on December 20, 2013. DE 12. On May 8, 2014, Judge Friedman entered a memorandum opinion and order (DE 19) accepting and adopting Magistrate Judge Komives's April 16, 2014 report (DE 18), which recommended:

... the Court should deny defendant summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's retaliation and access to courts claims based on defendant's alleged confiscation of plaintiff's legal materials, and should grant summary judgment with respect to all other federal constitutional claims alleged by plaintiff based on his failure to exhaust any such claims as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Court should also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims, and should dismiss these claims without prejudice to plaintiff refiling these claims in state court.

DE 18 at 1. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Komives recommended the Court conclude that "plaintiff's grievance [ARF-12-09-2990-17g] exhausts both his retaliation claim based on the alleged confiscation of his legal papers, and the independent access to courts claim." DE 18 at 6, 7.

C. Pending Matter

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's January 7, 2015 verified motion to compel discovery. DE 28. This motion concerns Plaintiff's October 13, 2014 requests for production of documents (DE 28 ¶ 4) and Defendant's November 14, 2014 response that documents would be provided for 254 per page (DE 28 ¶ 5). Plaintiff represents that he is indigent and unable to afford this cost ( see DE 28 ¶¶ 6, 9 & 10) and explains that he needs the requested documents and Defendant's assistance to acquire them (DE 28 ¶¶ 1, 7 & 8).

Defendant Miller responded on January 21, 2015. DE 30; see also DE 31 (Certificate of Service). Miller's sole argument is that "[t]his Court should deny the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery because courts have held that Defendants are not required to subsidize Plaintiff's litigation costs." DE 30 at 3-4.

D. Discussion

According to Plaintiff, his October 13, 2014 requests for production of documents sought (1) the March 17, 2012 property inventory receipt; (2) the July 29, 2012 Class II misconduct for disobeying a direct order; and (3) the September 11, 2012 cell/room shakedown log. See DE 28 at 2-3 ¶ 4. Defendant represents that his November 14, 2014 response requested "that Plaintiff pay a copying fee for the requested documents." DE 30 at 3.

Upon consideration, Plaintiff's motion to compel (DE 28) is denied in part. By way of background, Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. Along with his complaint (DE 1), Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (DE 2). Thereafter, the Court entered an order waiving prepayment of the filing fee and directing payment of the initial partial filing fee and subsequent payments (DE 4) and an order directing ...


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.