Patterson v. Kintu
- David Doty
- 0:17-cv-02263
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Patterson v. Kintu, Judge Thorson denied Patterson’s discovery motion about prison mail and extended the deadline to respond to summary judgment.
Patterson’s discovery request was denied, but the response deadline for the defendants’ summary-judgment motion was extended and the trial-ready date was changed.
What happened
In Patterson v. Kintu, Honora Tremaine Patterson asked the court to subpoena defendants to release legal mail that prison officials allegedly misplaced. Patterson’s exhibits showed an effort to resolve the issue through the prison’s internal grievance system.
The court declined to intervene because Patterson had not yet completed the required administrative process. The court also extended the deadline for responding to defendants’ summary-judgment motion because the requested information might be relevant.
Judge Becky R. Thorson denied Patterson’s discovery motion, set the response deadline for September 14, 2018, and changed the trial-ready date to December 10, 2018.
The detailed version
- Patterson v. Kintu · No. 0:17-cv-02263
- David Doty
- July 10, 2018
Background
Honora Tremaine Patterson moved for discovery, complaining that prison officials had misplaced legal mail. Patterson asked the court to subpoena the defendants to release the mail. Documents attached to the motion showed that Patterson was pursuing the issue through the prison’s internal grievance system.
Court’s reasoning
The court declined to intervene because Patterson had not exhausted administrative remedies, meaning Patterson had not yet completed the available prison grievance process. The court cited the requirement in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Woodford v. Ngo.
The court noted that the information Patterson sought might be relevant to the defendants’ recently filed motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a procedure for resolving a case without trial when the legal requirements for judgment are met based on the record. For that reason, the court extended Patterson’s time to respond to the summary-judgment motion and changed the trial-ready date.
Order
The court denied Patterson’s Motion for Discovery. Patterson’s response to the defendants’ summary-judgment motion was due by September 14, 2018, and the defendants’ reply was due 14 days after service of Patterson’s response. The case was set to be ready for trial on December 10, 2018. Judge Becky R. Thorson signed the order as United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.