Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, moves for the entry of a default
judgment and the imposition of sanctions for the defendant's purported failure
to fully comply with this Court's Order which granted, in part, claimant's prior
motion to compel discovery. The claim alleges that the forceful use of a curette
constituted a violation of claimant's religious rights and caused irreparable
damage to his dreadlocks (Claim ¶¶ 4, 12).
Preliminarily, it should be noted that the claimant has failed, once again, to
support his motion with copies of the discovery demands and defendant's
responses which he alleges are incomplete. However, inasmuch as the defendant
has submitted its responses in opposition to the motion, the Court will address
the motion on the merits.
Review of the claimant's demands and the defendant's responses thereto
indicates that the defendant is in compliance with the Court Order dated
September 5, 2008. This Order required the defendant to respond to the
claimant's demands numbered "1", "2", "9", "10", "14", and "24". The first two
demands required the production of policies, directives or instructions to
medical staff concerning the use of a curette and its purpose and concerning the
use of a medical instrument or tool in conducting a search of an inmate. The
defendant responded on October 6, 2008, indicating that no such written
policies, directives or instructions to medical staff exist. Nevertheless, the
defendant provided Directive 4910 governing the control of and the search for
contraband. This response was adequate.
Demand numbered "9" required the production of the hearing transcript in which
Nurse Lerman testified with respect to the subject incident. This transcript
Demand numbered "10" required the production of "[a]ll reports / statements
filed by Nurse Lerman on August 30, 2007 or after- pertaining to his use of a
medical tool on my dreadlocks / hair." The defendant responded that no such
reports were filed. This response was adequate.
Demand numbered "14" required production of the names of all inmates, medical
staff and security staff present in the hospital on Aug. 30, 2007 at 6.55.
. Defendant responded to this demand with the names of the persons present.
This response was adequate.
Demand numbered "24" required production of "[a]ny/ all consent to Aug 30,
2007 use of medical tool with any / all authorization." Defendant responded
that it possessed no such consent or authorization.
Not only did the defendant adequately and promptly respond to the claimant's
demands, it did so without requiring pre-payment of the reasonable cost of
photocopying as was permitted by the prior Court Order.
Accordingly, claimant's motion is denied.