Gray v. Wakefield
3:09-cv-00979
M.D. Penn.Oct 3, 2014Background
- Gray, a pro se inmate-plaintiff, alleges that correctional officers used excessive force and that other officers failed to intervene after a June 6, 2007 incident at SCI-Huntington; only excessive-force and failure-to-intervene claims proceed to trial.
- Final pretrial conference occurred August 20, 2014; several discovery/practice issues were previously addressed; Gray's request for counsel denied.
- Gray filed a motion in limine seeking (inter alia) additional witnesses, production of prison security videos and videotape retention policy, admission of a deceased witness’s declaration, production of a letter by a prison official, pretrial calls with inmate witnesses, exclusion of his underlying guilty-plea particulars, and permission to use another inmate as a legal assistant.
- Defendants represented that no video of the specific trip from the hearing room to Gray’s cell exists and submitted DOC videotape policies for in camera review, invoking governmental privilege.
- The court conducted an in camera review of policies, balanced safety concerns against Gray’s need to challenge the absence/retention of footage, and considered relevance under Rules 401–403 and privilege principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allow testimony of inmates Moore and Cunningham | They would provide relevant testimony supporting Gray | Testimony would be irrelevant or cumulative | Denied — previously decided at FPTC as irrelevant/duplicative |
| Phone call with inmate witnesses | Needs calls to prepare witness testimony | Already arranged / defendants arranged call | Moot — court already ordered call with Sutton and it occurred |
| View video produced by defendants | Needs to review all video evidence | Defendants produced available video | Moot — defendants represent Gray has reviewed produced video |
| Admit declaration of Mario Berry (deceased witness) | Declaration should be admitted in lieu of live testimony | No objection from defendants | Granted — declaration admitted |
| Produce letter from Shirley Moore‑Smeal re: exhaustion | Letter shows staff tried to prevent exhaustion | Exhaustion is not disputed and letter is irrelevant | Denied — not relevant to remaining claims |
| Produce B‑Pod, C‑Pod, D‑Pod footage for June 6, 2007 | Footage will show the alleged assault | No such video exists for that trip | Denied — defendants state no such footage exists |
| Produce DOC videotape retention/recording policy | Policy may show tapes should have been made or retained | Asserts governmental privilege; safety/security concerns | Granted in part — court orders disclosure of specified redacted sections of Policy 6.3.1 |
| Exclude details of underlying assault conviction/guilty plea | Prior conviction irrelevant to excessive-force determination | Conviction admissible under Rule 609 to impeach and may bear on need for force | Denied — details may be relevant and admissible under Rule 609 |
| Permit inmate Shawn Quinnones as legal assistant at trial | Needs assistance at trial | Court found Gray competent to proceed pro se; security/competency concerns | Denied — no basis for inmate assistant |
Key Cases Cited
- Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 (E.D. Pa. 1973) (governmental privilege in prison context and balancing confidentiality against civil-rights litigant's needs)
- Crawford v. Dominic, 469 F. Supp. 260 (E.D. Pa.) (evaluating importance of information to litigant when considering privilege claims)
- Torres v. Kuzniasz, 936 F. Supp. 1201 (D.N.J. 1996) (requirement that agency head personally review materials and articulate reasons when asserting executive privilege)
- U.S. v. O'Neill, 619 F.2d 222 (3d Cir.) (standards for assertion of privilege by government officials)