Ammons v. Bell

3 Citing cases

  1. Altantawi v. Bouchard

    2:22-cv-11906 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 20, 2024)

    Dyess v. Mullins, No. 1:16-CV-910, 2017 WL 3838642, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 1, 2017)(Bowman, M.J.) (denying motion to compel seeking all grievances, incident reports, disciplinary records, etc., against defendants) (citing Williamson v. Hass, 2014 WL 1652188 at *1 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 24, 2014); Ammons v. Bell, 2008 WL 426507 at * 2 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 14, 2008); Dearing v. Mahalma, 2012 WL 524438 at *3 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2012).

  2. Anderson v. Lawless

    Case No. 1:18-cv-380 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 1, 2019)   Cited 1 times
    Finding that "Plaintiff's request for documents relating to other inmates or time periods" were not relevant to his Eighth Amendment claim or First Amendment retaliation claim against defendants in their individual capacities

    Therefore, the requests are overly broad and compelling a response would impose an undue burden on Defendants. Other courts evaluating similar requests by prisoner plaintiffs have denied such requests both on the grounds of relevance, and because responding to such requests is overly burdensome. See generally, Williamson v. Hass, 2014 WL 1652188 at *1 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 24, 2014) (rejecting request for copies of grievances filed by other inmates against same defendants); Ammons v. Bell, 2008 WL 426507 at * 2 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 14, 2008) (same). As for the job titles that Plaintiff seeks in his motion to compel, Defendants represent that no such information was previously sought in the discovery requests with which they were served. Nevertheless, Defendants state that "all three Defendants, at the time of the alleged incident, were corrections officers.

  3. Dyess v. Mullins

    Case No. 1:16-cv-910 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 1, 2017)   Cited 7 times
    Denying pro se prisoner's "motion to amend to add claims relating to an entirely separate incident and involving three new Defendants"

    Other courts evaluating similar requests by prisoner plaintiffs have denied such requests on grounds of relevance, and because responding to such requests is overly burdensome. Defendants have presented both objections here. SeeWilliamson v. Hass, 2014 WL 1652188 at *1 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 24, 2014); Ammons v. Bell, 2008 WL 426507 at * 2 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 14, 2008); see also Dearing v. Mahalma, 2012 WL 524438 at *3 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2012) (medical records of other inmates not relevant); Tate v. Campbell, 2001 WL 1681112 at *5 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 13, 2001) ("complaints by other inmates about defendant Campbell have little or no relevance to plaintiff's claims against this defendant..." but permitting limited evidence of specific discipline imposed on Defendant during his employment). The cases cited by Plaintiff on the issue of relevancy are not persuasive because they involve allegations of a municipal custom or policy of deliberate indifference against police departments, where related complaints were clearly relevant.