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.

Lynn v. Maddox

United States District Court, Tenth Circuit

January 14, 2014

PATRICK LYNN, Plaintiff,
v.
LEONARD MADDOX, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Kenneth G. Gale United States Magistrate Judge

Before the Court are the following motions followed by Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter:

A. Motion for Reconsideration of KDOC IMPPs Ruling With Explanation of Relevance and Request for Orders (Doc. 139);
B. Motion for Orders Concerning Non-Party Witnesses Contact Info. and Request for Telephone Hearing Arguments (Doc. 145);
C. Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff’s First Request for Admissions and Request for Telephone Hearing Arguments (Doc. 146).

Each motion will be discussed in turn.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, who currently represents himself pro se, is an inmate whose claims arose while he was confined in a Kansas Department of Corrections (“KDOC”) facility. He initially brought excessive force claims, with the assistance of counsel, against two officers (Leonard Maddox and Anthony Hughes) employed at the El Dorado, Kansas, correctional facility. (See generally Doc. 1.) The District Court entered a Memorandum and Order granting, with prejudice, a motion to dismiss filed by Hughes and denying, without prejudice, the motion to dismiss against Maddox. (See Doc. 42.)

This Court recently entered an Order (Doc. 137) regarding a subpoena Plaintiff served on non-party Ray Roberts, the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Corrections, seeking various categories of documents (see Doc. 108, at 3-10). The discussion contained in that Order is incorporated herein by reference.

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 139).

In its previous Order (Doc. 137), this Court held that Secretary Roberts, recipient of the underlying subpoena, would not be required to produce the numerous internal management policies (“IMPPs”) listed by Plaintiff. The Court found that Plaintiff’s motion merely listed the IMPPs by number and contained no discussion of what these policies entail and/or cover. As such, the Court was unable to determine whether they are relevant to the limited issue of Maddox’s qualified immunity, the sole issue remaining in this litigation.

Plaintiff has now provided the Court with an explanation of the topics covered by two of these IMPPs (Nos. 12-111 and 12-116) as well as a discussion of their relevance to the issue of Defendant Maddox’s qualified immunity. (See Doc. 139, at 1-2.) Although this information should have been contained in Plaintiff’s initial motion, the Court will consider it now. As such, the Court finds that IMPP Nos. 12-111 and 12-116 are relevant and ORDERS non-party Secretary Roberts to produce the same to Plaintiff within 30 days of the date of this Order. The Court notes that it is not technically reconsidering its prior ruling, but rather considering newly ...


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.