United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is a Motion for Court Order Prohibiting Prison
Officials from Interfering or Obstructing Litigation (Doc.
173) filed by pro se Plaintiff Marco Damon Duncan
(“Duncan”) (#37679-048). Duncan alleges that
Defendants are interfering with or obstructing this
litigation by failing to provide him with a video and by
interfering with his legal mail. (Doc. 173).
Duncan has viewed the specific video surveillance footage at
issue and presents only conclusory allegations regarding his
mail, the Motion (Doc. 173) will be DENIED.
initiated this litigation pursuant to Bivens v. Six
Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of
Narcotics (Docs. 1, 16, 20) alleging that he was
subjected to excessive force when he was incarcerated at the
United States Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana. In
Duncan's Motion before the Court (Doc. 173), Duncan
claims that Defendants have prevented him from viewing
“specific video surveillance footage.” (Doc. 173,
p. 1). Duncan also alleges that Defendants have interfered
with the delivery and receipt of his mail by holding
“his mail from the Court in excess of two weeks or more
on a regular basis contrary to prison policy.” (Doc.
173, p. 2).
Law and Analysis
Motion, Duncan alleges that he has not viewed “video
surveillance footage of the long version video and email
video from January 13, 2017.” (Doc. 173-1, p. 1).
Duncan further provides that: “Plaintiff was unable to
view the DVD due to the fact that the substitute Counselor
did not have the passcode to unlock the DVD for
viewing.” (Doc. 173-1, p. 2).
response to Duncan's motion, Defendants allege that,
“because of an issue with passwords and encryption,
there was a delay in viewing certain videos. As of August 28,
2019, the plaintiff has had an opportunity to view all videos
that federal defendants provided.” (Doc. 185, p. 1).
Since Duncan has now reviewed the specific videos at issue,
his request is MOOT.
allegation that his mail is intentionally being delayed or
withheld by Defendants is belied by the voluminous record in
this case. For example, Defendants' response to the
Motion before the Court (Doc. 185) was mailed to Duncan on
September 3, 2019. (Doc. 185, p. 3). The Court received a
reply to the response from Duncan on September 16, 2019.
(Doc. 201). Thus, a document from Defendants was mailed to
Duncan, received by Duncan, and a response from Duncan
received by the Court all within 13 days. Additionally,
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was mailed to
Duncan on September 27, 2019 (Doc. 211, p. 3). In his Motion
for Extension of Time to respond, Duncan states that he
received Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on October 1,
2019-just four days after it was mailed.
Duncan's allegation that prison officials are holding
Duncan's mail is conclusory and unsupported by evidence.
See, e.g., Damm v. Cooper, 288
Fed.Appx. 130, 132 (5th Cir. 2008) (conclusional statements
and documents showing that some of Plaintiff's mail was
sent from the prison but was not received by the addressees
do not establish that Defendants actually interfered with
outgoing mail); McCann v. Winn Corr. Ctr.,
1:09-CV-2232, 2010 WL 2710402, at *4 (W.D. La. May 24, 2010),
report and recommendation adopted, 2010 WL 2755092
(W.D. La. July 6, 2010) (conclusory and self-serving
allegations concerning interference with the mail unsupported
by the record).
Duncan's claim regarding the surveillance videos is moot
and Duncan presents only conclusory allegations regarding his
mail, IT IS ORDERED that Duncan's Motion for Court Order
Prohibiting Prison ...