# KING v. WETZEL

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · July 22, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10668234

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 22, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10668234

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHAWN KING, )
) Case No. 3:20-cv-243
Plaintiff, )
) JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON
v. )
)
BARRY SMITH et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. Introduction
From this case’s inception in December 2020 to April 2024, this matter was before then
Chief Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy (“Judge Eddy”) for pretrial proceedings in
accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, and Local Civil Rule 72. As the docket
reflects, on April 23, 2024, the referral of this matter to Magistrate Judge Eddy was withdrawn
and reassigned to Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo (“Judge Lanzillo”). And on July 3, 2024,
this case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Christopher B. Brown (“Judge Brown”). This matter
is currently before Judge Brown for pretrial proceedings.
Pending before the Court are the following filings by pro se Plaintiff Shaun King (“King”):
(1) an “Appeal to District Judge of Magistrate Judge’s Amended Memorandum Order” at ECF
No. 273, (2) a “Motion for an Expedited Decision” of that appeal at ECF No. 277, (3) a “Motion,
Requesting District Judge Review and Reconsider[ation of] Past Magistrate Judge Decisions” at
ECF No. 278, and (4) a “Motion to Remove Magistrate Judge” at ECF No. 292.

For the reasons that follow, the Court will: (1) DENY King’s appeal/objections at ECF No.
273, (2) DENY AS MOOT King’s Motion for an Expedited Decision at ECF No. 277, (3) DENY
King’s Motion Requesting District Judge Review and Reconsideration of Past Magistrate Judge
Decisions at ECF No. 278, and (4) DENY King’s Motion to Remove Magistrate Judge at ECF No.
292.
IL. Relevant Background
King’s Fourth Amended Complaint, which is the operative complaint in this matter, was
filed on November 17, 2021. (ECF No. 170). In it, King alleges violations of his First, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and names five employees of the
correctional institute where King is incarcerated as Defendants. (Id.).
After the Court ruled on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the following claims remain in
this matter: (1) an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim; (2) a First and Fourteenth
Amendment claim alleging mail interference; and (3) First Amendment retaliation claims. (ECF
No. 161 at 4); (ECF Nos. 187, 199).
On March 31, 2023, King filed the following Motions, which are relevant to his pending
objections: (1) a Motion to Compel Discovery, (ECF No. 232), along with a brief in support of that
motion, (ECF No. 233); (2) a Motion to Compel Answers to Written Deposition Questions, (ECF
No. 234); and (3) a Motion for In Camera Review, (ECF No. 235). And on April 20, 2023, King
submitted an Addendum to his Motion to Compel Discovery. (ECF No. 243). Defendants filed a
collective response to those Motions on May 1, 2023. (ECF No. 251).
Judge Eddy initially entered an Order addressing King’s Motions on May 31, 2023, (ECF
No. 256), but King filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June 12, 2023, (ECF No. 258). As the

-2-

docket reflects, Judge Eddy granted King’s Motion for Reconsideration the day after it was filed,
vacated her initial Order at ECF No. 256, and explained that an Amended Order would be
forthcoming.
Judge Eddy entered an Amended Memorandum Order on June 21, 2023, which: (1) denied
in part and deferred in part King’s Motion to Compel Discovery at ECF No. 232 and the
subsequent addendum at ECF No. 243, (2) denied King’s Motion to Compel Answers to Written
Deposition Questions, and (3) granted King’s Motion for In Camera Review. (ECF No. 261).
King timely filed objections—styled as an “appeal” to this Court—to Judge Eddy’s
Amended Memorandum Order on June 28, 2023. (ECF No. 273). King raises several specific
objections, which the Court will address below, but his general assertion is that Judge Eddy’s
“Order is clearly erroneous and contrary to law and [the] F[ederal] R[ules of] C[ivil] P[rocedure].”
(Id. J 18). King also contends that the Order in question was “highly prejudicial and indicative of
judicial bias.” (Id. {| 22). King filed a Motion for an expedited decision regarding his objections at
ECF No. 273 on November 3, 2023. (ECF No. 277).
The same day, King filed a Motion seeking this Court’s review and reconsideration of
several past decisions rendered by Judge Eddy. (ECF No. 278). The Court will address the specific
requests made by King therein below.
Finally, on April 18, 2024, King filed a Motion to Remove Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 292).
Ill. Discussion
King’s objections take aim at a slew of previous decisions rendered by Judge Eddy. The
Court will address each objection in tum, beginning with King’s objections to Judge Eddy’s
Amended Memorandum Order at ECF No. 261.

-3-

A. The Court Will Deny King’s Objections to Judge Eddy’s Amended Order at ECF
No. 261
1. King’s Motions Informing Judge Eddy’s Amended Order and
Defendants’ Response
Judge Eddy’s Amended Memorandum Order addressed four filings by King related to
discovery issues. (ECF No. 261).
King’s first Motion, a “Motion to Compel Discovery[,]” (ECF No. 232), generally argued
that Defendants provided King with initial discovery that was incomplete, insufficient, and/or
difficult to discern. (Id. at 2). King also complained of what he perceived as improper objections
and invocations of privilege asserted by Defendants in answering his written deposition
questions. (Id. at 3-4).
King filed a brief in support of his Motion, which generally argued that King’s discovery
requests were in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. (ECF No. 233). Specifically,
King contended that Defendants’ objections to his discovery requests “fail to raise any privileges”
and are otherwise frivolous. (Id. at 3). He alleged that his “requests for policies, memoranda, and
directives serve several purposes,” and are proper pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act
(the “APA”) and the “Accardi Doctrine[.]” (Id. at 4). King also argued that his requests for “all,”
“each,” “every,” and/or “any” of certain documents were appropriate. (Id. at 5).
He also focused on his request that Defendants produce copies of grievances filed by King,
arguing that the grievances Defendants provided in initial discovery were incomplete. (Id.).
Moreover, King alleged that his “request that the Attorney General provide copies of all caselaw

upon which the defense intends to rely” was justified. (Id. at 6).

-4-

King also submitted an addendum to his Motion to Compel Discovery at ECF No. 232.
(ECF No. 243). In that addendum, King argued that defense counsel “has intentionally
misrepresented to this Court the items produced and the dates of mailing[] to [him] Defendants’
Responses to Plaintiffs Written Deposition Questions.” (Id. at 1). He also averred that defense
counsel cannot assert that Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”) policies “directly
related to [his] constitutional violations are not discoverable.” (Id. at 3). At bottom, King argued
that defense counsel “is deliberately delaying and obstructing the discovery process by feigning
ignorance to clear and precise questions or pretending not to understand a discovery request
regardless of [the request’s] specificity.” (Id.).
King’s second Motion sought to compel “each of the Defendants to answer every
submitted written deposition question.” (ECF No. 234 at 1). Therein, he argued that Defendants
improperly evaded certain questions. (Id. at 1-2). He also clarified certain questions he posed
regarding DOC policies. (Id. at 2). Moreover, King addressed Defendants’ complaints that certain
questions did not specify time periods, alleging that “it is clear that [he] is referring to any point
[in] time during his incarceration ... and periods while he was housed in the” Restricted Housing
Unit (“RHO”). (id.). King ultimately argued that Defendants should be compelled to answer each
submitted question because they “go towards establishing mind-set, motivations, or motives[,]”
and “seek to reveal biases and general predispositions.” (Id. at 2).
Finally, in King’s third Motion, he requested “in camera reviews regarding defense
counsel's assertions for its redactions of documents[.]” (ECF No. 235 at 1). He argued that defense
counsel “cannot have free reign in determining its redactions of documents and what [he] has a
right to be privy to.” (Id.). By his telling, “the defense should be forced and required to propose
-5-

the redactions, and [] the Court must the[n] determine which are appropriate and then
permit/order any redactions.” (Id.).
Defendants filed an omnibus response to King’s Motions on May 1, 2023. (ECF No. 251).
Defendants argued that “they are entitled to interpose appropriate objections to any” of King’s
discovery requests. (Id. at 3). With respect to King’s request for policies, memoranda, and
directives, Defendants stated that they will produce a copy of the DOC’s Policy and Procedures
Manual. (Id.). However, Defendants explained that they objected to King’s requests for “all,”
“each,” “every,” or “any” of certain documents as overbroad, irrelevant, and disproportional,
arguing that this case “is not concerned with the entirety of [King’s] confinement with the DOC.”
(Id.). Defendants also argued that King’s request for case law did not fall within the scope of
discovery. (Id. at 3-4).
Regarding their answers to King’s written deposition questions, Defendants stood on
their previous objections and denied any allegation by King that certain documents evidenced
“coaching” by counsel. (Id. at 4). Defendants also reiterated their objection that King’s request for
“all Misconduct Reports listed in [his] Misconduct History” was overbroad, irrelevant, and
disproportional. (Id. at 5). Moreover, Defendants argued that it is sufficient that “[a]nswers or
objections have been provided to each question by each respective defendant and all have been
signed ... under an acknowledgment of the penalties for perjury.” (Id.). They further averred that
each Defendant “appears to have provided answers or responses to each of the questions posed.
to the best of their ability.” (Id. at 6).
2. Judge Eddy’s Amended Order

-6-

As previously noted, Judge Eddy issued an initial decision ruling on King’s Motions two
months after they were filed. (ECF No. 256). But King filed a Motion for Reconsideration shortly
thereafter. (ECF No. 258). In that Motion, King argued that Judge Eddy’s initial decision contained

numerous errors and was generally contrary to law. (Id.). Judge Eddy granted King’s Motion,
vacated her initial decision, and indicated that she would file an Amended Order.
Judge Eddy issued her Amended Order on June 21, 2023. (ECF No. 261). She first
addressed King’s Motion to Compel Discovery, (ECF No. 232), and his addendum thereto, (ECF
No. 243). (ECF No. 161 at 5-10). Judge Eddy offered a summary of the discovery process leading
to King’s Motions, as follows.
Pursuant to an Amended Case Management Order, Defendants were ordered to provide
King with the following initial discovery:
(1) all incident reports, grievances and appeals therefrom, disciplinary reports,
investigative reports, appeals, any existing video or photographic documentation,
or other similar documents in its possession concerning the alleged incident or
incidents, and
(2) all records concerning the alleged incident or incidents.
(Id. at 5) (citing ECF No. 203).
Defendants filed a Notice in December 2022 indicating that over 900 pages of documents
had been produced, but that (1) portions of an Extraordinary Occurrence Report and several vote
sheets were redacted for security reasons, and (2) King’s mental health records and Inmate
Cumulative Adjustment Record were withheld from production. (d.) (citing ECF No. 204 { 4(a)-
(d)).

-7-

King filed a Request for Additional Discovery —seeking forty-two additional items from
Defendants—in January 2023. (Id.) (citing ECF No. 213). Judge Eddy explained that “[t]he vast
majority of these requests were very general and overbroad|,]” and many requests concerned
King’s entire imprisonment within the DOC “and were not confined to the claims raised by the
operative complaint in this matter.” (Id.). Judge Eddy noted that “i]t appears that ... Defendants
objected to many of these requests[,]” but because “neither party provided the Court with” those
objections, the Court was “unsure of what the specific objections were[.]” (Id. at 5-6).
In March 2023, King filed a “Motion to Extend Time to File Motion to Compel and Notice
to Admit.” (Id. at 6). Defendants responded that they believed that had provided King with all
requested documents and encouraged King to identify any specific deficiencies in their responses
or advise them of additionally needed discovery. (Id.) (citing ECF No. 230). Defendants also
attached an itemized list of all documents they mailed to King in December 2022 and February
2023, respectively. (Id.) (citing ECF No. 230-1).
Turning to King’s operative Motion to Compel Discovery, Judge Eddy explained that
King “makes broad and general challenges to the responses and objections submitted” by
Defendants, and she is unable to “rule on an objection by [King] that is not particularized.” (Id.).
However, Judge Eddy addressed several specific objections raised by King in his Motion.
With respect to King’s request for policies, memoranda, and directives, Judge Eddy
explained that although Defendants agreed to produce a copy of the DOC’s Policy and
Procedures Manual, King argued that “each [] DOC policy is relevant to this case’ and that he
‘cannot request a policy by DC-ADM and number which he does not know and may not exist.’”
(Id.) (quoting ECF No. 258 {J 12, 13) (emphasis in original).
-8-

Judge Eddy found that “while the scope of discovery pursuant to Rule 26 is broad, it is
not unlimited and may be circumscribed, as discovery should not serve as a fishing expedition.”
(Id. at 7). Adding that “[rJequest[s] for documents must be stated with reasonable specificity[,]”
Judge Eddy sustained Defendants’ objections and denied King’s request to compel “any policy”
as overbroad, irrelevant, not proportional, and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. (Id.).
Judge Eddy also rejected King’s argument that the Accardi Doctrine and the APA justified
his requests for “all” or “any” policies and memoranda. As she explained, King’s invocation of
United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shauhnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954) — which held that rules promulgated
by a federal agency are controlling upon that agency —has no applicability to this case, where there

are no federal agencies involved. (Id.).
Next, Judge Eddy turned to King’s requests that sought “all,” “each,” “every,” or “any”
of certain documents “without providing any time frame.” (Id.). She noted that notwithstanding
Defendants’ objections to these requests, “Defendants have represented that for most requests,
they have provided those documents relevant to the timeline in this case.” (Id.). Accordingly,
Judge Eddy sustained Defendants’ objections and denied King’s Motion to Compel, explaining
that the case was confined to King’s remaining claims and reiterating that discovery should not

serve as a fishing expedition. (Id. at 8).
Addressing King’s request for copies of the caselaw upon which Defendants intended to
rely, Judge Eddy sustained Defendants’ objection and denied King’s request on that score because
such materials do not fall within the scope of discovery. (Id.).
Judge Eddy then turned to King’s request for “all Smart Communications monthly mail
logs, detailing item tracking number, the sender’s name and address, the title of the received item,
-9-

... [and] the date shipped to the facility” between May 31, 2020 and March 20, 2022. (Id.). She
explained that defense counsel “has represented that [King] has been provided with Mail Logs
dated December 7, 2022, and February 9, 2023. And counsel has represented that he will see if
additional information is available from the DOC.” (Id.).
Noting that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1) “imposes on all parties a continuing
obligation to supplement or correct its discovery responses|,]” Judge Eddy found that the “Court
has no reason to doubt that [defense counsel] will supplement the discovery responses, if need
be[,]” and thus denied King’s request that Defendants produce the materials in question. (Id.).
Judge Eddy next dealt with King’s “objections” to Defendants’ responses to his written
deposition questions. (Id. at 9). She noted that King “did not identify any specific objections” and
accordingly denied his Motion to Compel on this score. (Id.). She also rejected King’s argument
that the document he obtained—which apparently contained inadvertently provided attorney-
client material—reflected that defense counsel was coaching a particular Defendant. (Id.). Judge
Eddy reasoned that the “comments” in the margins of that document merely provided the
Defendant “direction in answering the questions.” (Id.).
Further, Judge Eddy noted that King requested “the job descriptions and responsibility”
for each Defendants’ position held at the time King’s lawsuit was filed. (Id.). She explained that _
Defendants provided copies of the job descriptions for the positions held by each Defendant at
the relevant time, and noted that King “did not identify any specific objection[s]” thereto. (Id.).
Thus, Judge Eddy denied King’s Motion in this regard. (Id.).
King’s twentieth request sought all “disciplinary misconduct inmate responses or
versions of events[,]” which Defendants argued was overbroad, irrelevant, and not proportional.
-10-

(Id.). Judge Eddy noted that Defendants had provided King with eleven Misconduct Reports
within the timeframe relevant to his operative Complaint, along with a copy of his Misconduct’
History, which Defendants submitted to the Court as an exhibit. (Id.). For this reason, and because
King did not identify a specific objection, Judge Eddy denied King’s Motion to Compel further

responses to this request. (Id.).
Judge Eddy also addressed King’s objection to Defendants providing certain
documents—namely, vote sheets—in redacted form by asserting various privileges and security
concerns. (Id.). She directed Defendants to “submit those documents, both redacted and
unredacted, to the Court for in camera review together with a privilege log on or before July 6,
2023.” (Id.). “After the Court has reviewed the documents,” she explained, “it will supplement
this Order with a ruling as to whether the [] Defendants have properly asserted various privileges
and security concerns.” (Id.).! Thus, Judge Eddy deferred ruling on this aspect of King’s Motion
to Compel pending the completion of in camera review of the challenged documents. (Id.).
Judge Eddy then pivoted to King’s Motion to Compel Answers to Written Deposition
Questions at ECF No. 234. (Id.). She first addressed King’s objection that Defendants’ answers

were not handwritten. (Id.). Judge Eddy denied King’s objection, explaining that there is no
requirement that answers be handwritten, and found that because each Defendant signed an
acknowledgment under the penalty of perjury as to each answer and objection, no more was
required of them for the verification of responses. (Id.).

1 The Court notes that Judge Eddy issued the contemplated Order on July 17, 2023, directing Defendants to
supplement their document production in accordance with her rulings on or before August 1, 2023. (ECF
No. 274). Defendants submitted a Certificate of Compliance with that Order on August 25, 2023. (ECF No.
276). King has not challenged Judge Eddy’s July 17, 2023, Order in his Motions pending before this Court.
-11-

Judge Eddy also addressed King’s objections to several of Defendants’ responses to his
written deposition questions. (Id.) (citing ECF No. 234 {J 2, 4-7). She observed that Defendants
“did answer deposition questions to the best of their ability and, where appropriate, counsel
asserted objections.” (Id.). “Should this case proceed to trial,” she explained, King “will have the
opportunity to question’ the individual [] Defendants about their deposition answers.” (Id.).
Accordingly, Judge Eddy denied King’s Motion to Compel, insofar as it sought to compel answers
to his written deposition questions.
Finally, Judge Eddy turned to King’s Motion for In Camera Review. (Id.). Noting that
Defendants took no position on this request, she reiterated her ruling that Defendants shall
submit the relevant documents to the Court for in camera review, thereby granting King’s
Motion. (Id.).
3. King’s Objections and the Court’s Analysis
Judge Eddy’s Amended Order ultimately denied in part, deferred in part, and granted in
part King’s Motions— which focused solely on discovery issues.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides the general framework for discovery in
federal civil litigation. Parties may obtain discovery of any matter that is both nonprivileged and
relevant to a party’s claim or defense, so long as it is “proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In determining whether discovery is proportional to the needs of the case,
courts must consider “the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the

-12-

proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(]).
Rule 37 provides the mechanism to compel discovery from a person or party who refuses
to provide it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. The party moving to compel discovery under Rule 37 bears
the initial burden of proving the relevance of the material requested. See Morrison v. Phila. Hous.
Auth., 203 F.R.D. 195, 196 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (citations omitted). If the movant meets this initial
burden, the burden shifts to the person resisting discovery to establish that discovery of the
material requested is inappropriate. Momah v. Albert Einstein Med. Ctr., 164 F.R.D. 412, 417 (E.D.
Pa. 1996) (citation omitted). The person resisting discovery must explain with specificity why
discovery is inappropriate; a simple response that the discovery sought is overly broad,
burdensome, oppressive, vague, or irrelevant is insufficient. See Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d
985, 991-92 (3d Cir. 1982). Notably, a district court “is afforded wide discretion in managing its
docket and discovery.” Drippie v. Tobelinski, 604 F.3d 778, 783 (3d Cir. 2010).
As relevant to this Court’s analysis of King’s objections, “[d]iscovery motions are
nondispositive pretrial motions[.]” Williams v. Bell, No. 16-CV-01584, 2019 WL 2177263, at *3 (E.D.
Cal. May 20, 2019).
“Following a magistrate judge’s issuance of an order on a nondispositive matter, the
parties may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days of being served with a copy of
the order.” EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)).
“If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s order regarding a nondispositive matter, the district
court ‘must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly
erroneous or is contrary to law.’”” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)). That standard requires the
district court “to review findings of fact for clear error and to review matters of law de novo.” Id.

-13-

Moreover, “it is the party filing the notice of appeal who bears the burden of demonstrating that
the magistrate judge’s decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Sanchez v. Silbaugh, no
20-CV-1005, 2022 WL, 16950426, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2022).
King timely objected to Judge Eddy’s Amended Order. (ECF No. 273). His overarching
contention is that the Amended Order was “clearly erroneous and contrary to law” and the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 273 at 3). But he also asserts several specific objections
to Judge Eddy’s Amended Order, which the Court now addresses in turn.

a. King’s First Objection
First, King objects that “all relevant motions, declarations under penalty of perjury, and
attached exhibits have not been properly considered.” (Id. at 1). Specifically, he argues that his
request for additional discovery at ECF No. 213 contained at least forty-two requests, but Judge
Eddy only addressed “a few” in her Amended Order. (Id.). He also pointed to his submissions at
ECF Nos. 233 and 258, arguing that each filing raised issues that were not reviewed or considered
by Judge Eddy. (Id. at 2).
After reviewing Judge Eddy’s Amended Order and King’s submissions at ECF Nos. 213,
233, and 258, the Court will deny King’s objection that Judge Eddy failed to properly consider
King’s arguments and requests.
Recall that Rule 26 provides that parties may obtain discovery “regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs
of the case,” considering, among other things, “he importance of the discovery in resolving the
issues.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In King’s case, his operative claims are those that survived
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, namely: (1) a failure to protect claim under the Eighth
-14-

Amendment, alleging that Defendants failed to protect him from threats and harassment issued
by other prisoners and staff members; (2) a First and Fourteenth Amendment claim that
Defendants interfered with his mail, as he never received various letters and publications that

were sent to him; and (3) First Amendment retaliation claims, asserting that Defendants issued
misconducts against him and purposefully placed him in harsh conditions for expressing his
safety concerns. (ECF Nos. 187, 199). Moreover, King’s operative Complaint specifies that “[a]ll
incidents” complained of happened “between May 30, 2020 up to and through 2021.” (ECF No.
170 at 5).
Beginning with King’s request for additional discovery at ECF No. 213—which sought
forty-two items from Defendants — as Judge Eddy explained, the vast majority of King’s requests
are general and overbroad, considering the scope of his remaining claims.
For example, among the requests Judge Eddy did not specifically address in her Amended
Order, King sought “[a]n accounting of the total number of inmate grievances filed year-by-year,
between 2016 and 2022, by the entire inmate population and the total number of findings at every
level of the process.” (ECF No. 213 at 4) (emphasis added). Elsewhere, King requested “[m]onthly
inmate account statements for [his] entire period of incarceration.” (Id.) (emphasis added).
Another request sought “[e]very ... cash slip [he] submitted for payments/disbursements from
his inmate account while” incarcerated, (id.), and another asked for “[a]ny documentation
showing oversight compliance between” the institution where he was incarcerated and the DOC
“since 2015[,]” (id. at 5).
Though not an exclusive list of requests falling into this category, the Court finds that
these requests—and those like them—are not proportional to the needs of the case and generally
-15-

seek materials outside the ambit of King’s remaining claims. Thus, the Court agrees with Judge
Eddy’s conclusion that many of King’s requests contained in ECF No. 213 were overbroad, such
that Judge Eddy’s decision to deny King’s Motion to Compel such documents was not clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.
Moreover, the Court notes that Judge Eddy did address a significant number of King’s
requests made in ECF No. 213, even if she did not address each request individually. Judge Eddy
specifically addressed King’s requests for “all,” each,” every,” or “any” of certain documents
without providing any time frame. (ECF No. 261 at 7-8). At least fifteen of the forty-two requests
in ECF No. 213 meet these criteria. (See generally ECF No. 213). With respect to these requests,
Judge Eddy sustained Defendants’ objections that they were overbroad, not relevant, not
proportional, and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. (ECF No. 261 at 7-8).
Further, of King’s requests for documents that did provide a particular time frame, five
sought documents dating back to 2015 or 2016, well before May 2020, which, by King’s own
telling, marked the beginning of the incidents that form the basis of his Complaint. (ECF No. 213);
(ECF No. 170 at 5). Upon independent review, and especially considering that Defendants
represented that “for most requests, they have provided those documents relevant to the timeline
of this case[,]” the Court cannot conclude that Judge Eddy’s conclusions on this score were clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.
King similarly argues that Judge Eddy improperly failed to address the “issues and
rationales for requests” he provided in his brief in support of his Motion to Compel at ECF No.
233. (ECF No. 273 at 2). The Court first notes that Judge Eddy addressed several arguments
contained in King’s brief. For example, while King argued that Defendants’ position that “the

-16-

scope of this matter is limited” was “incorrect[,]” (ECF No. 233 at 3), Judge Eddy found that the

scope of discovery “is not unlimited and may be circumscribed],]” and she repeatedly explained
that discovery should not serve as a fishing expedition, (ECF No. 261 at 7-8). Judge Eddy also
explicitly addressed King’s arguments related to his requests for all DOC policies —including his
arguments rooted in the APA and the Accardi doctrine, (ECF No. 233 at 4)—and found them
unavailing, (ECF No. 261 at 6-7).
Additionally, Judge Eddy addressed King’s argument regarding Defendants’ responses
to his written deposition questions. (Id. at 9). She noted that King “did not identify any specific
objections[,]” and therefore denied his Motion to Compel on this score. (Id.). The Court agrees
with Judge Eddy’s finding. In his brief, King argued that Defendants improperly “refus[ed]” to

answer certain (unidentified) questions “based on” their “belief of appropriateness.” (ECF No.
233 at 6). He also asserted that “[o]bjections may be raised but then an answer is still required.”
(Id.). But Rule 26 provides that a party may “serve[] on the requesting party a written answer or
objection” to a particular discovery request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) (emphasis added). Because
“It}he party filing the motion to compel must ask the [C]ourt to overrule specific objections,” and
King did not do so here, the Court finds no error in Judge Eddy’s denial of King’s Motion in □□□□
respect. Schneider v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No. 13-CV-4094, 2016 WL 11268210, at *6 (D. Kan. Feb. 19,
2016).
Judge Eddy also specifically addressed King’s argument that “Mail Denial Notifications
[m]ust [b]e [p]Jroduced.” (ECF No. 233 at 6). King’s argument centers around his request for

2 Because King specifically objects to Judge Eddy’s conclusion on this score, (ECF No. 273 at 3), the Court
will address the propriety of Judge Eddy’s determination below.
-17-

“Smart Communications monthly mail logs and Security Processing Center monthly mail logs”
between May 31, 2020, and March 30, 2022. (ECF No. 213 at 2). As Judge Eddy explained, defense
counsel “represented that [King] has been provided with Mail Logs dated December 7, 2022, and
February 9, 2023. And counsel has represented that he will see if additional information is
available from the DOC.” (ECF No. 216 at 8). Judge Eddy also noted that the Court “has no reason
to doubt” that defense counsel will supplement discovery pursuant to Rule 26(e)(1). (Id.).
Accordingly, Judge Eddy denied King’s request to compel Defendants’ production of this
material. (Id.). To be sure, the Mail Logs King seeks are relevant to his claim that Defendants
improperly interfered with his mail. But the Court cannot conclude that Judge Eddy’s finding
was Clearly erroneous or contrary to law, especially given (1) the Mail Logs already produced by
Defendants, (2) Defendants’ ongoing obligation to supplement discovery, and (3) Defendants’
representation that they will continue to search for additional materials relevant to King’s
request. The Court reiterates, however, the importance of Defendants’ ongoing obligation on this

score, considering the importance of Mail Logs to King’s mail interference claim.
In the interest of thoroughness, the Court now turns to the arguments King asserted in
ECF No. 233 that Judge Eddy did not explicitly address in her Amended Order.
In King’s brief, he argued that defense counsel has “continuously feigned
misunderstanding or misrepresented and mischaracterized deposition questions or document
requests” with respect to King’s requests for “all,” “each,” “every,” and “any” of certain
documents. (ECF No. 233 at 5). Judge Eddy addressed these requests in her Amended Order and
sustained Defendants’ objections that such requests were overbroad, irrelevant, and not
proportional, explaining that this “litigation is confined to those claims raised in the Fourth

-18-

Amended Complaint[.]” (ECF No. 261 at 7-8). Though she may not have addressed King’s
argument on this score explicitly, even considering King’s argument, the Court finds no error in
Judge Eddy’s conclusions. This is especially true considering Defendants’ representation that, for
“most” of these requests, “they have provided those documents relevant to the timeline in this
case.” (Id. at 7).
King also argued in his brief that copies of the grievances he filed, which Defendants
provided as part of their initial discovery disclosures, were “in some cases[] incomplete and
without attached documents, while not in any easily discernable order.” (ECF No. 233 at 5). He
went on to offer several arguments as to why the requested grievances were relevant to his claims.
(Id.). Judge Eddy did not specifically address this argument in her Amended Order.
The Court first notes that, in December 2022, Judge Eddy Ordered Defendants to provide
King with “all incident reports, grievances and appeals therefrom,” among other things. (ECF
No. 203). Shortly after Judge Eddy’s Order, Defendants filed a Notice representing that they had
provided King with “[a]ll relevant Grievances from 2018 through November 2022[.]” (ECF No.
204). Still, in January 2023, King sought “[aJll Inmate Grievances filed by [him]” in his Request
for Additional Discovery. (ECF No. 213 at 2). Judge Eddy then issued an Order directing
Defendants to respond to King’s Request, including his request for grievances. (ECF No. 216). In
March 2023, Defendants represented that they previously provided King with eighty-four copies
of grievances he filed. (ECF No. 230-1 at 2-4).
Because the record before the Court indicates that Defendants have provided King with a
thorough history of the grievances he filed, and considering the fact that “[m]anagement of
discovery is uniquely within the discretion of the trial judge[,]” the Court finds no error in Judge
-19-

Eddy’s failure to explicitly address King’s argument regarding grievances in her Amended
Order. Williams v. Kort, 223 F. App’x 95, 101 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing In re Fine Paper Antitrust
Litigation, 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982)).
Further, Judge Eddy did not specifically address King’s argument with respect to his
request for “Cash Slips[.]” (ECF No. 233 at 5). In his Request for Additional Discovery, King
sought “[e]ach Cash Slip submitted by [him] for Case Law|,” presumably for his entire period of
incarceration. (ECF No. 213 at 2). In his brief, King argues that these requests “would serve to
determine reimbursements as well as allow [him] to re-find previously purchased case lawJ.]”
(ECF No. 233 at 5).
The Court notes that Judge Eddy implicitly addressed King’s request on this score when
she sustained Defendants’ objections to King’s requests for “each” of certain documents without
specifying a date or time period. (ECF No. 261 at 7-8). To that end, the Court agrees with Judge
Eddy’s decision to sustain Defendants’ objection that King’s request is irrelevant, overbroad, and
not proportional, as it seeks materials well outside the temporal scope of his operative Complaint.
(Id.). As Judge Eddy explained, discovery is confined to materials relevant to King’s remaining
claims. (Id. at 8). The Court finds that King’s request for “[e]ach” Cash Slip bears little relevance
to his operative claims; and his argument that production of those documents would allow him
to determine reimbursements and “re-find” case law does not alter that conclusion. Accordingly,
the Court concludes that Judge Eddy’s determination on this score was not clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.
Moreover, to the extent Judge Eddy did not specifically address King’s arguments
regarding his request that Defendants’ produce “all case law upon which” they intend to rely,
-20-

(ECF No. 233 at 6), the Court again finds no error in this regard. As Judge Eddy explained,
producing case law in this manner falls squarely outside the ambit of discovery. (ECF No. 216 at
8); see also Saddozai v. Bolanos, No. 18-CV-03972, 2023 WL 3006635, at *1—-4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2023)
(similarly denying a plaintiff's request for “all case law and authorities relied on throughout this
litigation”).
Finally, King objects that his Motion for Reconsideration at ECF No. 258 “contained issues
and rationales which were not reviewed and considered or addressed” in Judge Eddy’s Amended
Order. (ECF No. 273 at 2). As before, the Court begins by noting that Judge Eddy addressed
several arguments King raised in ECF No. 258.
For example, King argued that Judge Eddy’s assertion in her original Order that “[t]he
only remaining claim in this case is [King’s] First Amendment denial of access to the courts claim”

was incorrect. (ECF No. 258 at 2); (ECF No. 256 at 4). Judge Eddy accounted for this argument by
correctly stating in her Amended Order that several claims remained in this case. (ECF No. 261
at 4). King objected further to perceived factual inaccuracies in Judge Eddy’s initial Order, none
of which have any bearing on the legal conclusions contained in Judge Eddy’s Amended Order
that are the subject of this Court’s review. (ECF No. 248 at 2-3).
Moreover, Judge Eddy addressed King’s arguments that Defendants improperly objected
to and/or invoked privilege in response to his discovery requests. (ECF No. 258 at 3). Indeed,
Judge Eddy recognized King’s objection and ordered Defendants to submit certain documents
that Defendants had redacted for privilege concerns to the Court for in camera review. (ECF No.
261 at 10). And she specifically addressed and sustained numerous objections launched by
Defendants. (See generally ECF No. 261).
-21-

With respect to King’s argument that his request for “any” DOC policy was justified, (ECF
No. 258 at 4), as previously explained, Judge Eddy explicitly and appropriately rejected that

argument and sustained Defendants’ objections to King’s request. (ECF No. 261 at 6-7).
Thus, King raised no argument in ECF No. 258 that would render any of Judge Eddy’s
legal conclusions clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
In sum, the Court, having considered all relevant document and arguments, will deny in
full King’s first objection that Judge Eddy failed to consider his relevant filings, namely (but not
limited to), ECF Nos. 213, 233, and 258. To be sure, Judge Eddy addressed a significant portion of
those arguments. And to the extent Judge Eddy did not specifically address some arguments
contained in those filings, the Court has explained above why those arguments—and Judge
Eddy’s failure to explicitly address them in her Amended Order—do not compel this Court to
conclude that Judge Eddy’s determinations were clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
b. King’s Second Objection
Second, King asserts that Judge Eddy “appears [to be] engaged in mind reading and
assuming the Government's position or objections.” (ECF No. 273 at 2). He points only to Judge
Eddy’s explanation that the Court was not in possession of Defendants’ objections to King’s
requests and argues that it was incumbent upon Defendants to submit those objections to the
Court. (d.).
Judge Eddy’s remark was in reference to Defendants’ objections to the forty-two items
King sought in his Request for Additional Discovery. (ECF No. 261 at 5). She noted that King
represented that “counsel for the defense objected to nearly the entire request, but did furnish

some documentation.” (Id. at 6) (quoting ECF No. 233 at 1). While Judge Eddy addressed the

-22-

specific objections King made with respect to several of the forty-two items he requested, she also
explained that she “is not able to rule on an objection by [King] that is not particularized.” (Id.).
An independent review of the filings Judge Eddy addressed in her Amended Order
bolsters her conclusion that much of King’s objections relative to his Request for Additional
Discovery were not sufficiently particularized. (See, e.g., ECF No. 243 at 3) (arguing that
Defendants “objected to furnishing [King] with required documents without legitimate cause”);
(Id.) (arguing that Defendants are “deliberately delaying and obstructing the discovery process
by ... pretending not to understand a discovery request”); (ECF No. 233 at 3) (arguing generally
that Defendants’ objections are “frivolous” and “incorrect”). Nonetheless, of King’s objections
that were sufficiently particularized, Judge Eddy adequately addressed them in her Amended
Order.
Thus, contrary to King’s assertion, Judge Eddy did not assume Defendants’ position or
objections on this score. Rather, she only addressed King’s particularized objections to
Defendants’ responses. Because the Court cannot conclude that Judge Eddy’s decision to cabin
her analysis in this way was clearly erroneous or contrary to law, it will deny King’s second
objection. See Parks, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 15-CV-00946, 2017 WL 3534993, at *10 (E.D. Pa.
Aug. 17, 2017) (finding that a party’s “objection meant little without reference to any particular
discovery request” or “cit[ation] to any specific document requests that [the party] believed that
[the other] had failed to properly answer”); United My Funds, LLC v. Perera, No. 19-CV-00373, 2020
WL 1225042, at *19 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2020) (explaining that “the party seeking to compel
particular information must [] address each objection raised by Defendants and show why each
discovery request is relevant to his claims”) (internal quotation omitted).
-23-

C. King’s Third and Fourth Objections
Third, King objects that “Defendants have failed to timely file objections and therefore
waive[d] them and so [his] requests should be granted.” (Id.). He also objects that Defendants
have “not met their burden or requirement ... to state the grounds” upon which they object to
King’s requests “with specificity[.]” (Id. at 2-3). But King’s objections do not take aim at any
specific response or objection provided by Defendants, making them infirm for reasons the Court
previously articulated.
In any event, the Court notes that Defendants’ actual responses to King’s discovery
requests, including any objections thereto, are not in the record before the Court. See W.D. Pa.
LCvR 5.4(A) (explaining that “[d]iscovery requests and responses ... shall not be filed with the
office of the Clerk of Court except by order of Court’).3 The Court therefore has no way of
concretely verifying the timeliness or specificity of Defendants’ objections to King’s discovery
requests, save those objections King has specifically identified and contested. Judge Eddy
addressed King’s particularized objections, and the Court has already explained why her
conclusions were legally sound.
Thus, considering the record before the Court, and because “there is particularly broad
deference given to a magistrate judge’s discovery rulings, especially when[,]” as here, “the

3 The Court notes that, while the record does not contain Defendants’ responses or objections to King’s
requests in the first instance, Defendants did outline some previously asserted objections in their response
to King’s discovery Motions. (ECF No. 251). For example, Defendants objected to King’s request for
documents that lacked specified timeframes as “overbroad, not relevant, not proportional, and not likely
to lead to admissible evidence[,]” explaining further that this litigation “is confined to the claims raised by
the operative complaint in this matter” and “not concerned with the entirety of [King’s] confinement with
the DOC.” (Id. at 3). The Court finds that that objection, and the other objections outlined in Defendants’
filing at ECF No. 251, are sufficiently specific so as to preclude the Court from concluding that Judge Eddy’s
findings with respect to those objections were clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
-24-

magistrate judge has managed the case from the outset and developed a thorough knowledge of
the proceedings,” the Court cannot conclude that the timeliness or specificity of Defendants’
objections render Judge Eddy’s Amended Order clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Bell v.
Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 08-CV-6292, 2010 WL 3724271, at *6 (D. N.J. Sept. 15, 2020). For these

reasons, the Court will deny King’s third and fourth objections.
d. King’s Fifth Objection
Fifth, King objects that the DOC “receives federal funding and therefore should be subject
to the Accardi doctrine.” (Id. at 3). Recall that Judge Eddy previously rejected King’s argument
that the entirety of the DOC’s policies were discoverable “to ensure compliance with the Accardi
[dJoctrine[.]” (ECF No. 261 at 6-7 & n.2).
As Judge Eddy explained, because the Accardi doctrine applies to federal agencies, and
there are no federal agencies named in this case, it is inapplicable. (ECF No. 261 at 7 n.2); see also
Saleem v. Pennsylvania, No. 21-CV-542, 2022 WL 1407917, at *1, *20-21 (M.D. Pa. May 4, 2022)
(explaining, in a case in which the plaintiff named the Pennsylvania DOC as a defendant, that
“It[here are no federal agencies named in this action and [the plaintiff's] reliance on the Accardi
doctrine is entirely misplaced”). The Court further notes that because there is no federal agency
named in this case, any argument King advanced with respect to the APA is also inapposite. See
S. Carolina Wildfire Fed’n v. Limehouse, 549 F.3d 324, 331 n.5 (4th Cir. 2008) (“[B]y tts terms, the
APA applies only to federal agencies.”).
Finally, any federal funding the DOC may receive makes no difference. See Singleton Sheet
Metal Works, Inc. v. Pueblo, 727 F. Supp. 579, 581 (D. Colo. 1989) (“[F]ederal funding alone does

-25-

not make [a local entity] a federal agency.”). Accordingly, the Court will deny King’s fifth
objection.
e. King’s Sixth Objection
Sixth, King contends that Judge Eddy’s decision is “highly prejudicial and indicative of
judicial bias.” (Id.). The Court disagrees. “[W]hen a judge’s opinion is formed by the proceedings
before [her], [her] opinions do not constitute bias ‘unless they display a deep-seated favoritism

or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” United States v. Ciavarella, 716 F.3d.
705, 723 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). Judge Eddy’s
Order falls well short of that standard.
As outlined above, Judge Eddy sufficiently addressed the particularized objections and
arguments King raised in his relevant discovery Motions. (See generally ECF No. 261). While Judge
Eddy appropriately sustained several of Defendants’ objections, she also granted King’s request
for in camera review of certain documents Defendants withheld by citing various privilege and
confidentiality concerns. (Id. at 10-11). And she repeatedly recognized the materials already
provided to King by Defendants, (id. at 5, 7, 9, 11), and stressed Defendants’ ongoing duty to
supplement discovery, (id. at 8).
For these reasons, and in conjunction with the Court’s analysis of King’s various
objections above, the Court finds that Judge Eddy’s Amended Order was neither prejudicial nor
indicative of any bias. The Court will therefore deny King’s sixth objection.
In sum, for the reasons above, and after independent review of the record in this matter,
the various filings that were the subject of Judge Eddy’s Amended Order, and King’s objections,

-26-

the Court finds that Judge Eddy’s decision at ECF No. 261 was not clearly erroneous or contrary
to law. Accordingly, the Court will deny King’s objections at ECF No. 273.
B. The Court Will Deny King’s Motion Requesting District Judge Review and
Reconsideration of Past Magistrate Judge Decisions at ECF No. 278
The Court now turns to King’s request that this Court “review and reconsider past
decisions of the Honorable Magistrate Judge[.]” (ECF No. 278 at 1).
King first seeks “review and reconsideration of his motions for appointment of counsel.”
(ECF No. 278). He argues that Judge Eddy erred in “repeatedly denying [his] request[s] once it
became apparent he was incapable of adequately and properly raising claims[.]” (Id.). To start,
King’s “request [for] review[,]” which the Court construes as objections to Judge Eddy’s Orders
denying his previous Motions for Appointment of Counsel, is untimely. Judge Eddy most
recently denied King’s renewed Motion to Appoint Counsel without prejudice in October 2021.
(ECF No. 168). King’s request for review was filed in November 2023, well beyond the 14-day
window to file objections to a Magistrate Judge’s order on a nondispositive pretrial matter
afforded to litigants by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). See Bronson v. Kauffman, No. 19-CV-
1519, 2023 WL 3847632, at *3 (W.D. Pa. June 6, 2023) (“[A] motion to appoint counsel is a
nondispositive pretrial motion[.]”).
Even if King’s objections were timely, the Court would still deny them. As Judge Eddy
previously explained, “’[iJndigent civil litigants possess neither a constitutional nor a statutory
right to appointed counsel[,]’” and district courts have “broad discretion to determine whether
appointment of counsel in a civil case would be appropriate.’” (ECF No. 168 at 1) (quoting Parkell

v. Danber, 833 F.3d 313, 340 (3d Cir. 2016)). Considering the analyses undertaken by Judge Eddy

-27-

in previously denying King’s Motions, (see ECF Nos. 41, 84, 168), the Court finds that her
decisions to deny King’s Motions without prejudice were not clearly erroneous or contrary to
law. See Bronson, 2023 WL 3847632, at *3 (“[T]he Court reviews Judge Eddy’s order denying [the
plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel] under th[e] ‘clearly erroneous’ standard.”).
Second, King objects that his filings at ECF Nos. 262, 263, and 264 “were intentionally and
deliberately conflated, despite [the] title of [those] motions[,] and denied.” (ECF No. 278 at 2). The
Court understands this objection as informing King’s broader argument that he “filed multiple
motions to raise objections and seeking reconsideration[,]” but “[o]nly a few were addressed by
the District Judge[.]” (Id. at 1).
King’s filing at ECF No. 262 is entitled “Motion to Raise an Objection and Seeking
Reconsideration[.]” Though he does not explicitly cite to any Order, that filing appears to take
aim at Judge Eddy’s initial Order addressing King’s discovery Motions. For example, King
argued that the “Court’s Order” factually conflicted with the Court’s Report and
Recommendation at ECF No. 187, (ECF No. 262 at 2), which is nearly identical to an argument
King advanced in his Motion seeking reconsideration of Judge Eddy’s initial Order, (ECF No. 258
at 2). But Judge Eddy granted King’s Motion for Reconsideration and, in doing so, vacated her
initial Order and issued an Amended Order. (ECF Nos. 259, 261). Thus, to the extent King’s
Motion at ECF No. 262 sought this Court’s review of Judge Eddy’s initial Order, that Motion was
mooted by Judge Eddy’s Amended Order. And the Court has already addressed King’s timely
objections to that Amended Order above. See supra Section IILA.3.
ECF No. 263 is entitled “Motion of Inquiry of the Court[.]” Therein, King asks the Court
whether (1) Defendants provided the Court with a copy of a privilege log, (2) he is entitled to

-28-

copies of redacted documents, and (3) there is a formal process for litigants to file formal

complaints for judicial misconduct. (ECF No. 263 at 1). In denying King’s Motion without
prejudice, Judge Eddy ordered Defendants to produce a privilege log and any redacted
documents to the Court. (ECF No. 267 at 1). After independent review, the Court finds that Judge
Eddy in no way conflated King’s Motion at ECF No. 263. To the extent King implies that his
Motion should have been addressed by this Court, because his Motion did not specifically object
to any Order of Judge Eddy’s or request this Court’s review, the Court rejects that contention.
King’s filing at ECF No. 264 is entitled “Motion to Preserve the Record[.]” In that Motion,
he did not object to any Order or request this Court's review. Instead, he requested that the Court
send him copies of each document he filed throughout the life of his case. (ECF No. 264). Judge
Eddy denied King’s Motion without prejudice and explained that “[a]Il documents filed by any
party, as well as all Court orders, in all cases filed in this Court, are preserved and available for
review on the Court’s ECF system.” (ECF No. 267). Again, the Court finds that Judge Eddy did
not conflate, but instead adequately addressed, King’s Motion at ECF No. 264.
Third, King asks this Court to reconsider his Motion seeking sanctions against Defendants
“for failure to produce documents or to update provided discovery.” (ECF No. 278 at 3). King
filed a Motion for Sanctions on April 20, 2023. (ECF No. 242). Judge Eddy denied that Motion a
week later, explaining that Defendants still had time to respond to King’s pending discovery
Motions. (ECF No. 248). Once Defendants did so, King filed a Motion to Clarify regarding his
previous Motion for Sanctions. (ECF No. 252). On May 12, 2023, Judge Eddy denied that Motion
and stated that “[a]sserting legally proper objections to discovery requests is not contemptable
action.” (ECF No. 257).
-29-

Because King’s Motion seeking this Court’s review of that Order was filed over five
months after the Order was docketed, his objection was not timely made. In any event, even if
King’s objection was timely, because “[t]he decision to impose sanctions for discovery violations

... [is] generally entrusted to the discretion of the district court[,]” and because King offers the
Court no legally persuasive reason to disturb Judge Eddy’s decision, the Court would not find
her conclusion clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Bowers v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletics Ass'n, 475
F.3d 524, 538 (3d Cir. 2007).
The remainder of King’s objections in his Request for Review center around the issues
addressed in Judge Eddy’s Amended Order at ECF No. 261. For example, King requests review
of Judge Eddy’s “decisions concerning written deposition questions” and argues that Judge Eddy
erred in her decision following his Motion to Compel Discovery. (ECF No. 278 at 2-3). Again,
King’s Request for Review was filed over four months after Judge Eddy’s Amended Order, so his
objections thereto are untimely. Moreover, the Court has already addressed the myriad objections
to Judge Eddy’s Amended Order that King timely made. See supra Section II.A.3.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny King’s Motion at ECF No. 278 requesting
this Court’s review of several decisions previously issued by Judge Eddy.
C. The Court Will Deny King’s Motion to Remove Magistrate Judge at ECF No. 292
Finally, the Court shifts its attention to King’s “Motion to Remove Magistrate Judge[.]”
(ECF No. 292). In that Motion, King alleges “a pattern of judicial bias” and “clearly erroneous”
decisions on behalf of Judge Eddy. (Id. at 2).
The most obvious ground upon which to deny King’s Motion is that it is now moot. As
previously explained, the referral of this case to Judge Eddy was withdrawn on April 23, 2024—

-30-

just under a week after King filed his Motion to Remove Magistrate Judge. (Id.). This matter is

now referred to Judge Brown. Accordingly, the Court cannot grant the relief King requests in his
Motion.
But the Court stresses that it would not grant King’s Motion even if Judge Eddy was still
assigned to this case. As the Court explained in a previous Order denying King’s request to assign
his case to another Magistrate Judge, the Court rejects any contention that Judge Eddy was in any
way incapable of reaching well-examined, fair, impartial, and unbiased decisions. (ECF No. 266
at 2); cf. In re Kensington Int'l, Ltd., 368 F.3d 289, 301-02 (3d Cir. 2004) (explaining that a judge may
be disqualified where that judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned”) (quotation
omitted). Indeed, the independent review this Court undertook to address King’s objections
proved that Judge Eddy has done just that throughout the life of this case.
An appropriate Order follows.

-31-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHAWN KING, )
) Case No. 3:20-cv-243
Plaintifé, )
) JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON
v. )
)
BARRY SMITH et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
AND NOW, to wit, this, << _ day of July, 2024, upon consideration of Plaintiff Shaun
King’s (1) “Appeal to District Judge of Magistrate Judge’s Amended Memorandum Order” at
ECF No. 273, (2) “Motion for an Expedited Decision” at ECF No. 277, (3) “Motion Requesting
District Judge Review and Reconsider[ation of] Past Magistrate Judge Decisions” at ECF No. 278,
and (4) “Motion to Remove Magistrate Judge” at ECF No. 292, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as
follows: .
The Appeal to District Judge of Magistrate Judge’s Amended Memorandum Order at ECF
No. 273, and the objections contained therein, are DENIED for the reasons stated in the
accompanying Memorandum Opinion;
e The Motion for an Expedited Decision at ECF No. 277 is DENIED AS MOOT;
e The Motion Requesting District Judge Review and Reconsideration of Past Magistrate
Judge Decisions at ECF No. 278 is DENIED for the reasons stated in the accompanying
Memorandum Opinion; and

-32-

e¢ The Motion to Remove Magistrate Judge at ECF No. 292 is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

LAD | f
□□ “1, Ve
Soma FR, 2 NR) Aa
KIM R. GIBSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Notice by U.S. Mail to:
Shawn King — MM2246
SCI Fayette
50 Overlook Drive
LaBelle, PA 15450

-33-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10668234. Public record. Not legal advice.