IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DRAPER FRANK WOODYARD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-00566-WS-N

)

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER 

This action is before the Court on defendants’ responses (docs. 37 and 38) to 

plaintiff’s motions (docs. 4, 13 and 34) seeking a preliminary injunction and temporary 

restraining order to remove him from any proximity to his attacker and motion to 

subpoena records (doc. 35).1 Also under consideration is plaintiff’s reply, as set forth 

not only in his “Rebuttal to Defendants’ Answer and Special Report” (doc. 42), but in his 

subsequent motion (doc. 39) to compel the defendants to release records he previously 

requested in his motion to subpoena records (doc. 35) and motion (doc. 41) to now 

subpoena records which report “the actual number of fights with and without weapons 

and assaults that have occurred within the Annex and on the exercise yard from 2003 to 

2013.” 

 1 Plaintiff contends that these records will refute the evidence submitted by the defendants in 

support of their Special Report and Answer (docs. 29-20), which have now been converted to a motion 

for summary judgment (doc. 33).

Case 1:12-cv-00566-WS-N Document 44 Filed 06/10/13 Page 1 of 3
2

The most pressing issue in this case at the moment is whether or not the plaintiff is 

in immediate danger of further attack from his known enemy, Lawrence Anderson 

(“Anderson”). Defendants contend that plaintiff is in no such danger “because of the 

procedures in place to keep enemies separated, even while housed in the same 

segregation unit.” (Doc. 37 at ¶ 3). Defendants also contend that plaintiff and Anderson 

would not have had contact with one another in the shower, “have never been housed 

within three cells of each other,” and would not have been in the same exercise yard 

together. (Doc. 37 at both ¶ 4’s). 

Upon consideration of the above referenced documents, together with all other 

pertinent portions of the record, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (doc. 39) is GRANTED and defendants are 

directed, by no later than June 24, 2013, to produce to the plaintiff and the Court the 

following documents:

a. ADOC Form 225B HCF-12-00883C, “the record of [the]

disciplinary hearing concerning the July 24, 2012 incident.

b. The sections of the ADOC Classification Manual “which pertain to 

Close Custody classification and the override procedures for 

upgrading custody levels.”

2

 (Doc. 38 at ¶ 3).

c. ADOC Bed Roster and Black and White Roster “which contain the 

housing information for Plaintiff and inmate Lawrence Anderson.” 

(Doc. 38 at ¶ 3).

 2 Although plaintiff continues to request the entire 120 page Classification Manual, plaintiff has 

failed to establish the relevance of any other section beyond that which defendants are being compelled to 

produce.

Case 1:12-cv-00566-WS-N Document 44 Filed 06/10/13 Page 2 of 3
3

d. ADOC Segregation Daily Activity or Movement Log “related to the 

movement history [including meals, showers, exercise, medical 

visits, and psych visits] of Plaintiff and inmate Anderson . . . for the 

requested time periods.” (Doc. 38 at ¶ 5).

2. Plaintiff’s motion (doc. 41) to subpoena records which report “the actual 

number of fights with and without weapons and assaults that have occurred within the 

Annex and on the exercise yard from 2003 to 2013” is GRANTED unless the defendants 

establish by no later than June 24, 2013, that such records do not exist. 

Upon receipt of these documents, it is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff is 

granted leave to specifically REPLY by no later than July 8, 2013, to defendants 

Response (doc. 37) in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (docs. 

4, 13 and 34) by which he seeks to be removed from any proximity to his attacker. 

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction shall again be taken under submission on 

July 9, 2013.

In view of the above Order compelling production of discovery, it is also 

ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted leave to SUPPLEMENT his “Rebuttal to 

Defendant’s Answer and Special Report” (doc. 42) by no later than August 5, 2013, at 

which time defendants’ Answer and Special Report (docs. 29 and 30), as converted to a 

motion for summary judgment (doc. 31), will be taken under submission.

DONE this 10th day of June, 2013.

s/Katherine P. Nelson 

 KATHERINE P. NELSON 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00566-WS-N Document 44 Filed 06/10/13 Page 3 of 3