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.

Cody v. McDonald

United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division

October 11, 2016

WILLIAM CODY, Plaintiff,
v.
ASHLEY MCDONALD, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; TIM MEIROSE, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DARIN YOUNG, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; HEATHER BOWERS, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JESSICA STEVENS, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; KAYLA TINKER, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DR. MARY CARPENTER, MD, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; LINDA MILLER-HUNOFF, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; STEVE BAKER, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND JENNIFER WAGNER, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; Defendants.

          ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY DOCKET NOS. 79 & 85

          VERONICA L. DUFFY United States Magistrate Judge.

         INTRODUCTION

         This matter is before the court on plaintiff William Cody's pro se verified complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Docket Nos. 1 & 12. After one Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and two cross-motions for summary judgment, only a single claim of Mr. Cody's remains: his claim in Count 3 of his complaint alleging interference with mails. See Docket Nos. 58 & 65. Now pending are two motions to compel defendants to respond to various discovery requests. See Docket Nos. 79 & 85. Mr. Cody's case has been referred to this magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) & (B) and the October 16, 2014, standing order of the Honorable Karen E. Schreier, district judge.

         FACTS

         In his only remaining claim, Mr. Cody alleges defendants violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by misdirecting, seizing, and/or holding or destroying a medical report sent to Mr. Cody by Dr. Griess, an outside medical doctor. See Docket No. 1 at pp. 17-20. Mr. Cody alleges between March 28, 2014, and May 30, 2014, Dr. Griess sent Mr. Cody the same medical report three times and each time defendants intercepted that report and failed to give it to Mr. Cody. Id. Mr. Cody alleges neither he nor Dr. Griess were given notice of defendants' confiscation of said mail. Id.

         DISCUSSION

         A. Motion to Compel Docket No. 79

         1. Interrogatory No. 10

         Mr. Cody served defendants with the following interrogatory:

Who, in the SDSP [South Dakota State Penitentiary] Mailroom received mail addressed to William or Wm. Cody from Medical Doctors or medical firms after: March 28, May 30, November 17, 19, or 26, December 2, 14, 16, 18, 23, 2014; January 23, March 17, April 14, 28, July 9, August 31, 2015; or January 23, 2016.

         See Docket No. 79-1 at p. 3.

         Defendants responded to Mr. Cody's Interrogatory No. 10 as follows:

Defendants object, as irrelevant and immaterial, to any request for information regarding “who in the SDSP Mailroom received mail addressed to William or Wm. Cody from medical doctors or medical firms” on any dates other than March 28, 2014, May 30, 2014, November 17, 29, 262014 [sic] and December 16, 2014. A review of the pleadings filed herein will readily reveal that these are the only dates on which Plaintiff alleges that he was not allowed to review reports from an outside provider. There is no mention whatsoever in the pleadings on file with the Court to the various other dates now referred to. As for the dates of March 28, May 30, November 17, 19 or 26 and December 16, 2014 referred to by Plaintiff, the individuals assigned to work in the SDSP Mailroom include the following:
March 28, 2014 - Sharon Reimann / Lisa Fraser
May 30, 2014 - J. Storevik / Cathy Wynia
November 17, 2014 - S. Reimann / Linda ...

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.