The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
REGINALD JONES,
#B58058,
Plaintiff, Case No. 19-cv-01386-SPM
v.
CHAD WALL,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MCGLYNN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on various motions filed by Plaintiff Reginald Jones.
1. Motion to Compel Service of Subpoena (Doc. 128, 133, 135, 155)
On October 25, 2021, the Court granted Jones’s request for subpoenas and directed the
Clerk to issue him two signed, but otherwise blank, subpoenas. (Doc. 74). Jones requested the
subpoenas in order for him to request copies of grievances he filed with the Office of Inspector
General. Jones did not receive the subpoenas, and on March 8, 2022, the Court resent Jones two
additional subpoenas. (Doc. 114). Jones received the subpoenas a few days later on March 14,
2022. (See Doc. 128). On March 31, 2022, Jones filed the motion to compel service of subpoena
currently before the Court.
Jones asks the Court to intervene in the service of the subpoenas. (Doc. 128). On March
22, 2022, he sent one of the subpoenas, proof of service document, and the Court’s Order at Doc.
74 to the law library for copies using institutional mail. Jones did not receive any copies and the
originals were not returned to him. He sent a letter to the law library inquiring about his copies and
received the response, “your order was processed on 3/22/2022 per photocopy log.” (Id. at p. 7).
Jones then sent a follow-up letter to the law librarian on April 6, 2022, asking for a copy of the
money voucher indicating he paid for the copies sent on March 22. The law librarian sent Jones a
copy of the money vouchers dated March 20 and March 21 with a notation stating, “copies of
vouchers around 3/22/2022.” (Doc. 135, p. 7). These vouchers did not include money vouchers for
the subpoena and attached documents. Jones seeks the Court’s assistance in copying and serving
his subpoenas. (Doc. 128, 133, 135, 155).
Defendant Wall was directed by the Court to respond to allegations and filed a response on
May 2, 2022. (Doc. 150). In the response, Wall states that as an employee of Pinckneyville
Correctional Center, not Menard Correctional Center where Jones is currently incarcerated, he has
no knowledge of the events occurring at Menard and cannot speak on behalf of the law librarian.
To the extent Jones is seeking an order from the Court, ordering service of a subpoena upon a non-
party by the U.S. Marshalls Service, Wall argues that the documents which Jones seeks by way of
subpoena are not related to his claim of excessive force in this case, and therefore are irrelevant.
As such, Wall asserts it would be a waste of the Court’s resources and the time of the U.S.
Marshalls to grant Jones’s request. To the extent Jones is seeking injunctive relief, Wall states that
the Court does not have jurisdiction over the employees at Menard and the request is outside the
scope of the First Amended Complaint, which deals with excessive force at Pinckneyville. For
these reasons, Wall asks the Court to deny the motion.
The Court will GRANT in part the motion to compel subpoenas. (Doc. 128). The Court
finds it troubling that when initially Jones inquired about his subpoena copies sent to the law library
on March 22, he was notified that his request was processed on March 22. Then when he requested
copies of payment receipts, he was given copies of vouchers “around” March 22. The law library
did not follow-up with this discrepancy or Jones’s assertions that his subpoenas, issued by this
Court, had been lost or misplaced by staff at the facility. Therefore, the Clerk of Court will be
directed to send to the litigation coordinator at Menard a single signed, but otherwise blank
subpoena. When filling out the subpoena, Jones is reminded that he shall give a reasonable time
for response by marking the “Date and Time:” field as follows: “14 days after receipt.” Defense
Counsel will coordinate with the ligation coordinator to ensure that the subpoena is delivered to
Jones and that he is able to make copies of both subpoenas in his possession. Defense Counsel
shall file a notice with the Court by July 22, 2022, confirming compliance with this Order and that
Jones received the subpoenas and was able to make the required copies.
The Court will not assist Jones in serving the subpoenas. As he has been advised, Jones is
responsible for serving the subpoenas in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, and
he is also responsible for paying the associated costs, even though the Court has found him to be
indigent. (See Doc. 74).
II. Motion to Compel Production of Document (Doc. 134, 149)
Jones asks the Court to compel Defendant Wall to produce an incident report from Danville
Correctional Center issued on November 10, 2015, that he requested on February 13, 2022. (Doc.
134). He claims that he sent Defense Counsel a follow-up letter after not receiving the document
but has not received a response.
Wall states that he received Jones’s Third Request for Production of Documents seeking
“IDOC incident report filed in Danville Correctional on or around the date of: November 10,
2015…” on February 16, 2022. (Doc. 144). He provided Jones a timely response objecting to the
production of the document as it is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. (Doc.
144). Wall contends that Jones misleads the Court by stating he has not received any response to
his production request. Wall points to the follow-up letter sent to Defense Counsel that Jones filed
as an exhibit. In the letter, Jones writes, “I wanted to give you a chance to reconsider your position
on the production of the 11-10-15 incident report as requested.” (Doc. 134, p. 3). Wall argues that
the incident report authored by an individual at Danville Correctional Center over four years prior
to allegations at Pinckneyville raised in this case would be wholly irrelevant to the ultimate issue
of whether or not he used excessive force against Jones on July 15, 2019.
Jones filed a reply explaining that he is requesting the incident report in order to show
“systematic denials of housing for PC being not limited to one facility.” (Doc. 149). He also says
the document will be used to provide a “structural basis for the move to Unit #5 from Unit #4 in
Pinckneyville on 7-12-19, and to effectively question the falsehoods listed by staff in official
…documents from on and around 7-15-19; prior to and after the staff assault and excessive force
related to this cause.” (Id. at p. 3).
The motion to compel the production of an incident report from 2015 is DENIED. (Doc.
134). The Court understands that Jones believes that there are years of mistreatment regarding his
housing assignments that ultimately led to the alleged incident on July 15, 2019 at Pinckneyville
and continue at Menard to this day. If he chooses, Jones may provide an affidavit testifying to such
incidents when responding to any motion for summary judgment. However, the Court does not
find that an incident report written by a staff member at a different facility four years prior to the
alleged use of excessive force is relevant to Jones’s claim regarding Wall’s conduct. The fact that
Jones mentions the incident report in grievance he wrote in December 2015 and produced during
discovery does not make the incident relevant. Rather, it shows Jones’s continual discontent with
his housing assignments while incarcerated. Jones is reminded that allegations of conspiracy and
retaliation are outside the scope of this lawsuit.
III. Motion to Compel Additional 13 Requests for Production (Doc. 143, 164)
In the Scheduling and Discovery Order, the Court stated that each party was limited to
serving 15 interrogatories and 15 requests for production of documents. (Doc. 63). The parties
were instructed that these limits may be increased for good cause shown. Jones has filed a motion
asking the Court to allow him 13 additional document production requests. (Doc. 143). Defendant
Wall filed a response in opposition, and Jones filed a reply. (Doc. 158, 164). The Court will rule
on each request in turn and ultimately finds good cause to allow Jones three additional document
production requests (requests numbered 1, 2, and 3 below).
1. The cellhouse history for an inmate named Eric Blackman. Jones states that Blackman was
in cell 5-B-74 when Jones was transferred to that cell on July 14, 2019. Jones states that he
requested protective custody from Sergeant Belford on July 12, 2019. Jones was not
granted protective custody and instead moved to cell 5-B-74 with Blackman on July 14.
Jones was told by Blackman when he entered the cell that Defendant Wall would be
moving Blackman. Blackman was removed from the cell at 6:27 a.m. the following
morning. Jones argues Blackman’s cellhouse history is relevant to “determine if Lt. Wall
followed through on that promise, during a level one deadlock when the investigation of
the 7-15-19 incident was being commenced.” (Doc. 164, p. 5). Jones states that Wall claims
he was not in Unit #5 during the staff assault and excessive force, but if Blackman was
moved from cell 5-B-74 by Wall before Wall’s 7 a.m. shift, then that would show Wall
was in Unit #5 prior to 7 a.m., as Jones argues.
The Court agrees that if Wall was the staff member who transferred inmate Blackman from
the cell before 7 a.m. on July 15, 2019, then that fact would contradict any statement that
Wall was not in Unit #5 that morning before his shift. Accordingly, the request is
GRANTED in part. Defense Counsel is DIRECTED to produce to Jones any document
containing information regarding Blackman’s cell transfer the morning of July 15, 2019.
2. Any statements or documents which indicate Blackman was interviewed by Pinckneyville
staff or members of the Internal Affairs Unit in reaction to the staff assault or excessive
force involving Jones on July 15, 2019.
The Court agrees that if inmate Blackman was interviewed about the incident on July 15
involving Jones, his comments and potential testimony may be relevant. The request is
GRANTED in part. Defense Counsel is to produce to Jones any documents relating to an
interview with Blackman or statements made by Blackman regarding the staff assault and
excessive force incident involving Jones on July 15, 2019.
3. Images from July 15, 2019 depicting the staff assault and excessive force to Jones.
The request is GRANTED. To the extent there were photos taken that day, such photos
would be relevant, and Defense Counsel is DIRECTED to produce them.
4. The CD/DVD at Bates #00051 for viewing by Jones.
This request is DENIED as moot. Defense Counsel has indicated that she is going to
produce video camera footage for Jones for viewing.
5, 6, and 7. Jones requests various documents regarding procedures and details of the level
one lockdown that was implemented on July 15, 2019, at Pinckneyville.
Requests 5, 6, and 7 are DENIED. Jones argues that these documents are relevant because
his cellmate “Blackman was moved during a level one deadlock.” The Court agrees, as
previously stated, that documents recording who moved Blackman from the cell would be
relevant since Jones contends Wall moved Blackman prior to Wall’s 7 a.m. shift, refuting
claims that Wall was not in Unit #5 during the excessive force incident that morning.
However, Jones does not argue that he was improperly removed from his cell during the
level one lockdown, and so, the procedures and processes for moving Blackman during a
level one lockdown or the name of the official who implemented the level one lockdown
is not relevant to Jones’s excessive force claim.
8. The timecard for the week of July 12, 2019, for Sergeant James Belford and documents
that record the start and end dates for Belford’s vacation.
This request is DENIED. Jones states that Belford’s timecard is relevant because this will
prove he “conversed with Belford” and requested protective custody. Jones argues that the
repeated denial of protective custody for over “half a decade” is relevant to the chain of
events that lead to him assaulting an officer and then the resulting excessive force used by
Wall. If he had been placed in protective custody as requested, then the events of July 15
would never have transpired. The Court disagrees that these documents are relevant. Even
if Jones was improperly transferred to Unit #5, and his request for protective custody was
mishandled, documents regarding what days Sergeant Belford worked in no way “bears
on” whether Wall used excessive force against Jones, after Jones assaulted another
correctional officer. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978).
9. All documents and papers that will record what an IDOC official is supposed to do when
an individual requests protective custody, including who should be notified and what
documents are supposed to be filed.
This request is DENIED. Jones may believe that he was improperly denied protective
custody and should not have been moved to a double cell on July 14, 2019; however, he
has not asserted that Wall was involved in any of the protective custody determinations or
his cell movement or placement in July of 2019. Thus, the Court does not find the
documents relevant.
10. A document that records the list of duties of Counselor Robert Samolinski for the date of
July 15, 2019, and the units and wings to which Samolinski was assigned as a correctional
counselor on July 15, 2019.
This request is DENIED. Jones asserts that Counselor Samolinski entered in his
accumulative counseling report at 8:19 a.m. on July 15, 2019, after the excessive force
incident occurred, that a DCA (double cell assessment) form for double celling had been
initiated. (See Doc. 28-6). Jones points out there is no entry for a DCA form prior to being
double celled in cell 5-B-74 on July 14 when he was transferred. Jones claims the entry is
“peculiar” because his protective custody request on July 12 stated he had issues being
double celled, and he had already been double celled at the time of the entry. As stated
above, these assertions regarding staff not following proper process for double celling or
protective custody are not relevant to Jones’s claim against Wall. There is no link to Wall’s
conduct.
11. The name of the computer program and the name of the individual who entered disciplinary
tickets into the computer system at Pinckneyville for the dates of July 12-15, 2019.
The request is DENIED. Such request is not relevant to whether Wall used excessive force
against Jones.
12. A document from Administrative Review Board Chairman Travis Baylor that records the
process to be undertaken by IDOC staff when an individual makes a request for protective
custody.
The request is DENIED. The Court does not find that information regarding whether staff
members at Pinckneyville properly processed Jones’s request for protective custody
relevant to his claim against Wall.
13. Disciplinary tickets #201901296, # 201901297, and #201901299.
The request is DENIED. Jones does not provide any explanation for why these disciplinary
tickets are relevant to his case.
IV. Motion to Compel Production of Document – DCA Form (Doc. 160, 170)
As part of his fourth request for production of documents sent to Defendant Wall, Jones
requested “DCA form (double cell assessment form) correctional counselor Robert Samolinski
indicated he initiated on 7-15-19 prior to 8:19 am after having seen Plaintiff ‘face to face’.” Jones
states that Wall denied his request claiming the document was irrelevant and outside the scope of
this case. Jones asks the Court to compel Wall to produce the DCA form. He argues this entry at
8:19 a.m. is an “oddity” because the staff assault and excessive force incident had already occurred
around 5:15 a.m. that same morning and he had already been assigned to a single man cell. Jones
claims this entry is false and that he was not assessed for a double cell prior to his cell move on
July 14. Jones asserts the document will shed light on a timeline of events. Jones also claims the
entry and the corresponding document goes “to the heart of the pc request as made to Belford.”
The motion is DENIED. Jones continues to make the argument that certain documents are
relevant because they show conduct on the part of non-parties that ultimately caused Jones to be
wrongly placed in cell 5-B-74. If he had not been in that cell, then the July 15 incident would not
have occurred. The facts surrounding Jones’s transfer to Unit 5 and the failure by staff to grant his
request for protective custody or properly conduct a double cell assessment are not relevant to
Walls’s alleged conduct on July 15.
V. Motion to Compel Documents Requested in 5th Request for Document Production (Doc.
161, 171)
Jones asks the Court to compel the production of documents listed in paragraphs 14 and 15
of his fifth request for document production. In paragraph 14, Jones seeks production of “all
documents pertaining to Plaintiff’s submissions for transfer from Pinckneyville Correctional
Center…from dates of: May 8, 2019 until July 15, 2019.” Jones again asserts that “why” the move
occurred from Unit 4 to Unit 5, where the excessive force occurred, is relevant. In paragraph 15,
Jones seeks a copy of the identification cards for Wall and another staff member named Brian
Miller.1
The motion to compel is DENIED. (Doc. 161). Again, the Court does not find that Jones’s
requests for transfer submitted to Counselor King, a non-party, is relevant or connected to Wall’s
alleged conduct. Furthermore, Defense Counsel has volunteered to allow Jones to view, but not
possess, institutional photographs of Wall and Miller in coordination with Menard. (Doc. 168, p.
6). The Court finds this compromise sufficient to balance Jones’s discovery needs and the concerns
for security and safety of Menard staff.
VI. Review of Deposition Transcript (Doc. 162, 166, 169, 170, 171, 175, 176)
Jones has filed several documents regarding reviewing a copy of the transcript from his
1 Jones states that Lieutenant Miller has indicated through discovery that he was the lieutenant of the cellhouse and
responded to the staff assault on July 15, 2019. Wall has claimed that he was not present in the cellhouse at that time.
deposition. He first filed a letter addressed to the Clerk with questions regarding his deposition
that was taken by Defense Counsel on April 18, 2022. (Doc. 162). He asks the following: 1) has it
been prepared? 2) why wasn’t I notified? and 3) how much will the transcript cost? (Id.). Jones
then filed a motion to clarify stating that the letter at Doc. 162 was intended for the court reporter
via the Clerk of Court. (Doc. 166). He further asserts that as of May 31, 2022, he had not heard
from Defense Counsel or the court reporter in regard to the completion of the disposition. He
claims he is being denied the right to review his transcript.
Jones next filed a motion to compel. (Doc. 169). In the motion, Jones states that his
deposition was taken by Defense Counsel on April 18, 2022. On June 1, 2022, Jones was notified
by a correctional officer that he would be participating in a “legal line” to review his deposition
transcript. Jones asserts he was not given proper notice regarding the time, date, and location for
the review. Jones refused to review his transcript on June 1 believing that the “cage” designated
for reviewing the transcript was in the North Two healthcare unit. Jones asserts that on August 29,
2019, while at the North Two healthcare unit waiting for his medical appointment, a sergeant
attempted to harm him. Jones has not returned to the healthcare unit in North Two since that
incident. Additionally, no litigation representative came to his cell that day, as he requested.
Because of his safety and security concerns at Menard, he only exits his cell when under Court
order. Jones asks the Court to order Defendant Wall to provide proper notification to him prior to
review of the deposition transcript due to the circumstances that took place on August 29, 2019.
(Doc. 169).
Jones also filed a motion to supplement the motion to compel. (Doc. 170). Jones adds that
prior to the appointment to review his transcript in the healthcare unit of North Two on June 1, he
had sent Defense Counsel a letter on April 27, 2022. In the letter, he asked Defense Counsel to
inform him when the transcript is completed and states that he will request the transcript directly
from the court reporter’s office, as he “will not be dealing directly with Menard’s litigation team.”
He explains that if the litigation team requires him to leave his cell to make corrections to the
transcript, he will refuse. Jones asserts in the letter that there is no code of corrections which
prohibits him from having his transcript in his cell for review. Jones claims that he did not receive
a response to his letter.
The motion to clarify (Doc. 166), and the motion to supplement (Doc. 170) are
GRANTED. The motion to compel notification of deposition transcript review (Doc. 169) is
DENIED. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30, Jones is allowed to review and make changes
to his deposition transcript within thirty days of it becoming available, if requested “before the
deposition is completed.” FED. R. CIV. P. 30(e). However, Rule 30 does not specify the manner in
which a deponent is to review the transcript. See Parkland Venture, LLC v. City of Muskego, 270
F. R.D. 439, 441 (E.D. Wisc. 2010) (holding that all that is required under Rule 30 is to make the
transcript “available” for reviewing). Jones’s reasons for refusal to review the transcript on June
1, 2022, do not provide a basis for the Court to interfere in Menard procedures for allowing an
inmate to review a deposition transcript. Neither will the Court compel Defense Counsel or staff
at Menard to provide Jones with notice prior to review.
Defense Counsel is DIRECTED to ensure Jones is provided another opportunity to review
his deposition transcript prior to the close of discovery. Jones is WARNED that if he refuses to
review the transcript at the time and place designated by Menard staff, then he will not be given
another opportunity to review and make changes to the deposition transcript. Jones is also
ADVISED that “[a]n inmate is not constitutionally entitled to a free copy of documents prepared
at the expense of another.” Mounson v. Chandra, No. 04-cv-365, 2009 WL 1209045, at *1 (S.D.
Ill. 2009) (citing United States v. McCollum, 426 U.S. 317 (1976)). If Jones would like a copy of
his deposition for his records, he must purchase a copy from the court reporter.
VII. Motion to Clarify (Doc. 175)
The Court DENIES the motion to clarify filed on June 21, 2022. (Doc. 175). The motion
does not add clarity to any of the pending motions, and Jones merely restates factual allegations
he has asserted elsewhere in the record.
VIII. Motion to Supplement Doc. #79 (Doc. 177)
The Court DENIED the motion to supplement Doc. #79. Doc. #79 was a motion to compel
defense counsel recusal that the Court already dismissed in November 2021. (Doc. 84). The Court
will not accept further briefing on the issue.
IX. Deadlines
All discovery must be completed by September 7, 2022. Any dispositive motion on the
merits of Jones’s claims shall be filed by October 7, 2022. All Daubert motions shall be filed by
October 7, 2022.
DISPOSITION
For the reasons stated above, the motion to compel service of subpoena (Doc. 128) is
GRANTED in part. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send to the litigation coordinator at
Menard a single signed, but otherwise blank subpoena. When filling out the subpoena, Jones is
reminded to give a reasonable time for response by marking the “Date and Time:” field as follows:
“14 days after receipt.” Defense Counsel is DIRECTED to coordinate with the ligation
coordinator to ensure that the subpoena is delivered to Jones and that he is able to make copies of
both subpoenas in his possession. Defense Counsel SHALL FILE a notice with the Court by July
28, 2022, confirming compliance with this Order and that Jones received the subpoenas and was
able to make the required copies.
The motion to compel production of document (incident report) (Doc. 134) is DENIED.
The motion to compel additional (13) requests for production of documents (Doc. 143) is
GRANTED in part. Jones is allowed the three additional requests for production as stated in this
Order. Defense Counsel is DIRECTED to produce to Jones 1) any document containing
information regarding Blackman’s cell transfer the morning of July 15, 2019; 2) any documents
relating to an interview with Blackman or statements made by Blackman regarding the staff assault
and excessive force incident involving Jones on July 15, 2019; and 3) any photographs taken on
or after July 15, 2019, in relation to the staff assault and excessive force incident involving Jones.
The discovery shall be produced by August 5, 2022.
The motion to compel production of document (DCA form) (Doc. 160) and the motion to
compel production of documents (Doc. 161) are DENIED.
The motion to clarify (Doc. 166) and the motion to supplement (Doc. 170) are GRANTED.
The motion to compel notification of 4-18-22 deposition transcript review (Doc. 169) is
DENIED. Defense Counsel is DIRECTED to ensure Jones is provided another opportunity to
review his deposition transcript prior to the close of discovery. Jones is WARNED that if he
refuses to review the transcript at the time and place designated by Menard staff, then he will not
be given another opportunity to review and make changes to the deposition transcript. If Jones
would like a copy of his deposition for his records, he must purchase a copy from the court reporter.
The motion to clarify (Doc. 175) and the motion to supplement (Doc. 177) are DENIED.
All discovery must be completed by September 8, 2022. Any dispositive motion on the
merits of Jones’s claims shall be filed by October 8, 2022. All Daubert motions shall be filed by
October 8, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 8, 2022
s/Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge