Opinion
CIVIL 4:21-cv-04068
01-26-2022
MICAH LANCE NEAL PLAINTIFF v. WARDEN JEFFIE WALKER; CAPTAIN GOLDEN ADAMS; LIEUTENANT ALICE MILLER; SERGEANT RICHARD HENDERSON; NURSE STEVEN KING; and OFFICER K. WATSON DEFENDANTS
ORDER
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Micah Lance Neal proceeds in this action pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Preserve Evidence. (ECF No. 34). Defendants Walker and Adams have filed a Response. (ECF No. 38). The motion is ripe for consideration.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on October 14, 2021, alleging his civil rights were violated between August 25, 2021, and October 6, 2021, when he was “placed in a maximum security disciplinary segregation…[and] unconstitutionally punished.” (ECF No. 1). On January 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion stating in part:
Plaintiff request…a motion to preserve evidence in video and audio form. Date and time and location of request is December 29, 2021, from 3:00-4:00 p.m., Warden Jeffie Walker's office at the Miller County Detention Center. Plaintiff was escorted to Warden Walker's office where she attempted to force Plaintiff to discuss pending civil suit without the presence of Dugger Law Firm, James Levi Cook, and did so in a threatening and belittleing manner. Warden Walker denied any knowledge of suit, but records show she indeed has filed for legal representation in this matter. To date Duggar Law Firm shows to represent two of Defendants in said case and both were present in Walker's office. Request for motion to preserve evidence is needed as fear of termination of records due to rotation or in case of denial of event by Defendants.(ECF No. 34).
Counsel for Defendants Walker and Adams filed a response in opposition to the motion stating, “According to personnel of the Miller County Detention Center and Warden Walker, no such audio or video exists, and the requested video/audio recording cannot be preserved.” (ECF No. 38). They go on to state, “Defendants will preserve any relevant information, including available video or audio recordings, which is pertinent to Plaintiff's claims as directed in the Court's Initial Scheduling Order which will enter a deadline for the Defendants to produce their disclosures to Plaintiff.” Id. Defendants argue the motion should be dismissed as moot.
II. DISCUSSION
The Court finds the audio and video recordings, if in existence, of the meeting Plaintiff describes in Defendant Walker's office on December 29, 2021, are not relevant to Plaintiff's claims in this lawsuit, which are alleged to have occurred between August 25, 2021, and October 6, 2021. In addition, Defendants have stated to the Court the requested audio and video recordings do not exist in the MCDC's systems. Defendants cannot preserve what does not exist. Finally, Defendants represent to the Court that they will preserve “any relevant information, including available video or audio recordings which is pertinent to Plaintiff's claims…” (ECF No. 38).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion to Preserve Evidence (ECF No. 34) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.