1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JEFFREY D. HILL, :

: Case No. 4:05-CV-1229

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

EVELYN DERRICK, :

RICHARD SUTTON, : (Judge McClure)

JANE STUGART-OTTERBEIN, :

and LORI CRESSMAN, :

:

Defendants. :

O R D E R

May 30, 2006

BACKGROUND:

On June 20, 2005, plaintiff Jeffrey D. Hill commenced the instant litigation by

filing a pro se complaint in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The complaint

arises out of plaintiff’s banishment from the Muncy Public Library. On November

3, 2005, we granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in part, but allowed plaintiff’s

section 1983 claims, liberally construed as alleging violations of the First and

Fourteenth Amendments, to remain against defendants Derrick and Cressman. 

(Rec. Doc. No. 20.)

On January 9, 2006, Hill filed a motion for joinder of the Muncy Public

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 75 Filed 05/30/06 Page 1 of 8
1

 Currently before the court, but not the subject of this order, are the parties’

opposing motions for summary judgment and plaintiff’s May 5, 2006 motion to

strike defendants’ statement of facts and summary judgment brief.

2

Library Board of Trustees and the Muncy Borough Council as defendants. (Rec.

Doc. No. 39.) Hill did not file a brief in support. On March 9, 2006 we deemed

Hill’s motion for joinder withdrawn for failure to file a brief in support.

On March 13, 2006 Hill filed a resubmitted motion for joinder and filed a

brief in support. On April 18, 2006, Hill filed a motion for the judge to inspect the

Muncy Public Library. Finally, on April 27, 2006, Hill filed a motion to compel

certain discovery responses by the defendant. For the following reasons we will

deny these three motions filed by Hill. 1 

DISCUSSION:

I. HILL’S MARCH 13, 2006 MOTION TO ENJOIN [sic.]

MUNCY PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES &

MUNCY BOROUGH COUNCIL AS DEFENDANTS

On March 13, 2006, Hill resubmitted his motion to enjoin [sic.] the Muncy

Public Library Board of Trustees and the Muncy Borough Council as defendants. 

He filed a contemporaneous brief in support. Defendants filed a brief in opposition

on March 23, 2006. In his brief in support Hill alleges that the Board either acted

negligently in backing Derrick or granted their tacit consent to expel Hill from

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 75 Filed 05/30/06 Page 2 of 8
2

 We agree with defendants that is difficult to determine whether Hill is

seeking to add the Board members in their individual capacity or the Board as an

entity.

3

library. Hill does not allege the personal involvement of any of the Board members

with respect to the violation of his civil rights.2 Hill similarly alleges that the Muncy

Borough Council tacitly consented in Hill’s banishment from the Library. Hill also

conclusorily asserts that the Borough has had a twenty year policy of violating his

civil rights.

We will not allow Hill leave to amend his complaint to add the Muncy Public

Library Board of Trustees and the Muncy Borough Council. Hill has failed to state

claims for relief against these defendants. Hill has not alleged personal involvement

on the part of any Board members in violating his civil rights, a requisite for his

claim against them to be actionable. See Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 353 (3d

Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Hill’s claims against the Borough are similarly not

actionable because Hill’s assertion that there has been a history of violating his

rights is only a conclusory allegation. Therefore, Hill’s motion to enjoin, which we

construe as a motion for leave for joinder of additional defendants under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 15, is denied, as justice does not require leave under these

new allegations. 

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 75 Filed 05/30/06 Page 3 of 8
3

 On a separate section of the same document Hill provided a “Brief in

Support.” (Rec. Doc. No. 65.)

4

II. HILL’S APRIL 18, 2006 MOTION FOR

THE JUDGE TO INSPECT THE MUNCY PUBLIC LIBRARY

On April 18, 2006, Hill filed a motion for the judge to inspect the Muncy

Public Library “visually and acoustically.”3 Hill has cited no law in support of his

motion for the court’s inspection of the library. Defendants, by not filing a brief in

opposition, are deemed not to oppose the motion. Local Rule 7.6. Hill states in

his brief in support:

It is important for the finder of fact . . . to be familiar with

the size of the big room + the distances between the

check out desk + the computer area as well as between

the computer area + the computer area waiting area . . . .

It is important for the finder of fact . . . to be familiar with

the acoustics of the big room from the computer area to

the librarians’ personal/private space upstairs behind the

check-out desk + the half-wall.

(Rec. Doc. No. 65, at 1.) Hill’s brief suggests that this information is important

because it will better expose defendants’ negligence and dereliction of duty in

allowing teenagers to bounce a basketball inside the upstairs and downstairs of the

library. We must remind Hill that in our November 3, 2005 order granting

defendants’ motion to dismiss in part we only allowed Hill to proceed on his

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 75 Filed 05/30/06 Page 4 of 8
4

 We recognize Hill is currently banned from the library, but he could have

requested photos from the defendants during discovery or employed an

5

section 1983 claim alleging deprivation of his First Amendment right to assemble

and Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process against defendants

Derrick and Cressman. (Rec. Doc. No. 20, at 7-8.) As we have noted in previous

orders related to this case, the issue before us is whether Hill lost his library

privileges in violation of the United States Constitution. To repeat language from

our January 10, 2006 order: “[w]hether the defendants properly handled the

conduct of other patrons is not relevant to whether Hill lost his library privileges

without due process.” (Rec. Doc. No. 40, at 8.)

Hill has cited no law in support of his motion for the court to inspect the

library. It is within our discretion to view evidence outside the courtroom. See

American Glycerin Co. v. Eason Oil Co., 98 F.2d 479, 487 (10th Cir. 1938)

(holding it is within district court’s sound discretion to allow the inspection of

heavy, unwieldy or other demonstrative evidence outside courtroom). However, we

find no need at this stage for an inspection of the library. As we have already noted

we fail to see how this evidence could further Hill’s case. Finally, Hill could have

submitted demonstrative evidence in the form of photos or videos of the library for

the court’s review as is typical practice.4 Therefore we will deny Hill’s motion for

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 75 Filed 05/30/06 Page 5 of 8
investigator.

5

 On a separate section of the same document Hill provided an

“Affidavit/Brief in Support.” (Rec. Doc. No. 68.)

6

inspection of the Muncy Public Library. 

III. HILL’S APRIL 27, 2006 MOTION TO COMPEL

On April 27, 2006, Hill filed a motion to compel discovery and to levy

sanctions.5 The motion arises out of Hill’s request for admissions dated March 27,

2006. This request was four days before the March 31, 2006 discovery deadline. 

This was Hill’s fourth request for admissions. Hill’s request included fourteen

admissions. Hill’s first three requests for admissions included a total of twenty-six

admissions. On May 12, 2006, defendants filed a brief in opposition to the motion

arguing that Hill exceeded the number of admissions allowed under Local Rule 36.1

and noting that the case management plan did not provide any special discovery

limits. Defendants also noted that Hill did not confer with opposing counsel in

seeking more than the limit of twenty-five admissions, never sought leave to submit

additional requests and the discovery deadline expired prior to Hill’s filing his

motion to compel. Finally, defendants argue that sanctions are inappropriate as to

them and reiterate that Hill failed to consult with defense counsel pursuant to Local

Rule 26.3 prior to his filing of the instant motion to compel.

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 75 Filed 05/30/06 Page 6 of 8
7

We agree with the defendants that Hill’s motion should be denied. Hill has

repeatedly resorted to filing motions to compel with the court without attempting to

resolve the discovery issue with opposing counsel. Hill’s fourth request for

admissions exceed the twenty-five admissions he is allowed under the Local Rules. 

Hill could have sought leave for admissions and an extension of the discovery

deadline if he felt it necessary. As we have previously noted, we recognize that Hill

is proceeding pro se, but also know that he is a regular litigant in the courts of this

district and has demonstrated a familiarity with the Local Rules and the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Finally, we must note that Hill’s intentions in filing this

motion to compel are unclear to us, as the motion was filed well after the close of

discovery and the admissions he sought were filed weeks after Hill had already filed

his March 3, 2006 motion for summary judgment. For all of these reasons Hill’s

April 27, 2006 motion to compel discovery and levy sanctions will be denied.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Hill’s motion to enjoin [sic.] the Muncy Public Library Board of Trustees

and the Muncy Borough Council, construed as a motion for leave to file an

amended complaint adding additional defendants, is denied. (Rec. Doc. No. 54.) 

2. Hill’s motion for the judge to inspect the Muncy Public Library visually

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 75 Filed 05/30/06 Page 7 of 8
8

and acoustically is denied. (Rec. Doc. No. 65.)

3. Hill’s motion to compel discovery and to levy sanctions is denied. (Rec.

Doc. No. 68.)

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

James F. McClure, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 75 Filed 05/30/06 Page 8 of 8