Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

TAYLOR v. PHILLIPS, 1:11-CV-173 SNLJ. (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri Number: infdco20130703b17 Visitors: 3
Filed: Jul. 02, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 02, 2013
Summary: AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1 STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, Jr., District Judge. Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Potosi Correctional Center ("PCC"). He brings this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against defendant employees of the Missouri Department of Corrections ("MDOC") whom he alleges, in Fall of 2006 and Spring of 2007, retaliated against him for filing a lawsuit against defendant MDOC employee Paula Huffman Phillips. Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel defendants to produce grievances that perta
More

AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER1

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, Jr., District Judge.

Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Potosi Correctional Center ("PCC"). He brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against defendant employees of the Missouri Department of Corrections ("MDOC") whom he alleges, in Fall of 2006 and Spring of 2007, retaliated against him for filing a lawsuit against defendant MDOC employee Paula Huffman Phillips.

Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel defendants to produce grievances that pertain to this case (#30). Defendants have responded, and the time for plaintiff to file a reply has expired. The motion is now ripe for disposition.

Plaintiff states that he has requested "IRRs, grievances, and grievance appeals and their response dating back to 1-1-2006 to 11-7-2007." Defendants responded that the time frame for the requested documents goes beyond the allegations in the complaint. They further state that they produced as part of their Rule 26 disclosures the grievance materials related to plaintiff's complaint. Further, defendants correctly point out that plaintiff did not include in his motion a statement that he made a good faith effort to resolve this dispute before involving the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 37-3.04. For all of the foregoing reasons,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Motion to Compel (#30) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Memorandum and Order filed on June 24, 2013 (#34) is STRICKEN.

FootNotes


1. This Amended Memorandum and Order replaces a Memorandum and Order that mistakenly recounted facts from plaintiff's other case, No. 1:11cv174. The different facts do not change the outcome of the Court's Order; however, to avoid confusion and on its own motion, the Court will strike the originally-filed Memorandum and Order to correct the error.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer