Hill v. Rivello et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TYRONE HILL,
Plaintiff
V.
JOHN RIVELLO, et al.,
Defendants
Civil No. 3:24-cv-22
(Judge Mariani)
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Tyrone Hill ("Hill"), an inmate housed at the State Correctional Institution ,
Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C . § 1983.
(Doc. 1). 	Named as Defendants are Superintendent John Rivello, Captain Long, Lieutenant
Yonkers, Correctional Officer Tress, Correctional Officer Kirsh, Correctional Officer
Ainsworth, Correctional Officer Myers, Correctional Officer Gothard, and Correctional Officer
Deihl. 	Hill alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth
Amendment when oleoresin capsicum ("OC") spray was released against another inmate,
three stories below his cell, which caused him to fall on two occasions.
Presently before the Court is Hill's motion to compel discovery. 	(Doc. 48). 	For the
reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
Case 3:24-cv-00022-RDM-CA Document 75 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 8

I. 	Factual Background
The allegations of Hill's complaint stem from three separate incidents at SCI-
Huntingdon-the use of OC spray against a fellow inmate on June 27, 2023; Hill's fall down
the stairs on July 31, 2023; and Hill's fall in the shower on November 11, 2023. 	(Doc. 1).
On the morning of June 27, 2023, Hill was confined in his cell (CA-437) when he
Defendant Yonkers and several other correctional officers approached a cell three floors
below him (CA-142). 	(Id. ff lll(C)(1-8)). Hill alleges that these prison officials had riot gear,
breathing respirators, a stun shield, and two large canisters of OC spray. 	(Id.). 	Hill avers
that Defendant Rivello gave the orders to prison officials to perform the cell extraction of
another inmate. 	(Id. f lll(C)(7)). He then alleges that Defendant Yonkers and the other
correctional officers discharged OC spray into cell CA-142. 	(Id. f lll(C)(10)). There was no
ventilation, and the OC spray rose to the fourth floor and "stayed there like fog." (Id. f
lll(C)(11 )). 	Hill alleges that the OC spray burned his eyes, made him choke, caused him to
urinate on himself, and caused back spasms. (Id. f lll(C)(12)). The back spasms allegedly
caused him to fall. 	(Id.). 	During this incident, Hill was able to use his inhaler to help him
breathe. 	(Id.). 	"A long while later," when the housing tier was opened for all inmates, Hill
was sent to medical and received medication for his back spasms. 	(Id. f lll(C)(13)). When
Hill inquired as to why he was not evacuated to a safe area prior to the use of OC spray, the
Block Sergeant and Unit Manager allegedly informed him that Defendant Long ordered that
Hill remain in his cell during the incident. (Id. f lll(C)(15)).
2
Case 3:24-cv-00022-RDM-CA Document 75 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 8

Hill next alleges that the "residual consequences of this cruel and unusual corporal
punishment " caused him to fall down steps on July 31 , 2023 . (Id . ,r lll(C)(14)) . Hil l claims
the fall caused injury to his right knee and ankle. 	(Id.) .
Further , Hill alleges that, as a result of the OC spray incident in June of 2023, he had
back spasms in the shower on November 11 , 2023 . (Id.) . He asserts that the back spasms
made his right knee buck le, causing him to collapse in the shower in front of forty other
inmates . (Id . ,r V).
II. 	Legal Standard
A party who has received evasive or incomplete discovery responses may seek a
court order compelling disclosures or discovery of the materials sought. 	FED . R. C1v P.
37(a). 	The moving party must demonstrate the relevance of the information sought to a
particular claim or defense . The burden then shifts to the opposing party, who must
demonstrate in specific terms why a discovery request does not fall within the broad scope
of discovery or is otherwise privileged or improper. 	Goodman v. Wagner , 553 F. Supp . 255,
258 (E.D. Pa . 1982).
Generally , courts afford considerable latitude in discovery in order to ensure that
litigation proceeds with "the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial. "
Hickman v. Taylor , 329 U.S. 495,501 (1947) . Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)
provides that a party "may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case ...
3
Case 3:24-cv-00022-RDM-CA Document 75 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 8

Information with in this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be
discoverable. " FED. R. CIv. P. 26(b)(1 ). "[A]II relevant material is discoverable unless an
applicable evidentiary privilege is asserted. 	The presumption that such matter is
discoverable, however , is defeasible ." Pearson v. Miller, 211 F.3d 57, 65 (3d Cir . 2000).
Furthermore , the court may limit discovery if the discovery sought is unreasonably
cumulative, duplicative, or readily obtainable from some other source, the party seeking
discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information through discovery, or the
proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1). 	FED. R. CIv. P.
26(b )(2)( C).
Ill. 	Discussion
Hill takes issue with Defendants' responses to his discovery requests. 	(Docs. 48,
50-51 ). 	Specifically, Hill seeks: (1) video footage of the incident; (2) information related to
security procedures; and (3) misconduct reports related to another inmate. 	(Doc. 50). The
Court will address each request in turn.
A. 	Request for Video Footage
Hill first seeks an order to compel Defendants to show him the relevant video footage
of the incident on June 27, 2023. 	(Doc. 50, at 6-7). 	Defendants assert that a Court Order is
not necessary because, at the time they filed their opposition brief on April 29, 2025, they
were schedul ing a time for Hill to review the relevant video footage within the next 14 days.
(Doc. 56, at 3-4). 	The Court will accept the representation of defense counsel that Hill has
4
Case 3:24-cv-00022-RDM-CA Document 75 Filed 01/09/26 Page 4 of 8

been provided the opportunity to review the relevant video footage. 	Therefore, the Court
will grant this request. The Court will also direct Defendants to file a sworn affidav it or
declaration on the docket confirming that Hill has reviewed the relevant video footage. 	In
the event that Hill has not been afforded the opportunity to review the relevant video
footage, he may renew his motion with respect to this discovery request.
8. 	Request for Information Related to Security Procedures
Hill next seeks production of Policy 6.3 .1- Facility Security Procedures Manual,
Policy 5.1.1-Training and Staff Development, and the "Commissioned Officer Use of Force
Pocket Guide." (Doc. 50 , at 2, 9; Doc. 51 ~~ 1, 9). 	The requested documents relate to
contraband, the use of force , video recording , defensive weapons , cell extractions , and
special response team training requirements. 	(Doc. 51 ~ 1) . Defendants object to this
request and argue that the documents include information that is security-sensitive ,
pr ivileged , confidential , and irrelevant. 	(Doc . 51 , at 5, 9; Doc. 56 , at 4-6).
With respect to Policy 6.3.1 , Facility Security Procedures Manual, many federal
courts have declined to compel the disclosure of this policy, which is highly confidential in
the interests of prison safety and security . See , e.g ., Coit v. Garman, No. 1:17-cv-1438,
2018 WL 3818853 , at *2 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 10 , 2018) ; Eggleston v. Mitchell, No. 1:12-cv-1220,
2013 WL 5351053, at *1 (M .D. Pa. Sept. 23 , 2013) ; Victor v. Lawlor , No. 3:08-cv-1374,
2011 WL 1884616 , at *2 (M.D. Pa. May 18, 2011 ). 	Hill argues that the pol icy is relevant to
determine whether the Defendants acted with a leg itimate peno logical interest during the
5
Case 3:24-cv-00022-RDM-CA Document 75 Filed 01/09/26 Page 5 of 8

use of OC spray incident. 	(Doc . 50, at 5). 	Hill failed to persuade the Court that the reasons
for production outweigh legitimate security concerns. An inmate's access to the sens itive
security procedures in Policy 6.3.1 presents a grave threat to institutional secur ity.
Therefore , Defendants ' objection to the product ion of Policy 6.3 .1 is sustained and the
motion to compel is denied as to th is policy.
As to Policy 5.1 .1, Training and Staff Development, it appears that the DOC has
made this policy available to the public . See Policy 5.1.1,
https://www .pa .gov/contenUdam/copapwp-pagov/en/cor/documents/about-us/doc-
policies/05.01 .01 %20training%20and%20staff%20development.pdf (last visited Jan. 8,
2026) ; see also Yates v. Painter , No. 3:05-cv -1723 , 2010 WL 11661295 , *2 (M.D. Pa . March
26 , 2010) (noting that Policy 5.1 .1 is available to the public) . Accordingly, the Court will
grant this request, and Defendants will be directed to produce Policy No. 5.1.1, provided it is
not subject to any legitimate security concerns.
Hill next requests production of the Commissioned Officer Use of Force Pocket
Guide . This document presumably provides guidelines regarding the application of the
force needed to gain compliance of an inmate. The Court concludes that this information
appears to be relevant to the claims raised in Hi ll's complaint. 	However, the document may
also contain confidential information that raises leg itimate security concerns . Accordingly ,
the Court wil l grant the motion to compel to the extent that Defendants will be directed to
6
Case 3:24-cv-00022-RDM-CA Document 75 Filed 01/09/26 Page 6 of 8

provide Hill a declaration that fully and accurately summarizes the Commissioned Officer
Use of Force Pocket Guide.
C. 	Request for Misconduct Reports of Another Inmate
Hill also seeks the misconduct reports issued against fellow inmate Gospodev.
(Doc. 50, at 10-11) . He argues that the reports are evidence of Defendants' use of
excessive force and impropriety . (Id.) . Defendants argue that disclosing another inmate 's
misconduct reports is not pertinent to the issue before the Court, it risks the other inmate 's
safety , and the information is highly sensitive. 	(Doc. 56, at 7-8).
The documents requested by Hill seeks information related to another inmate, which
is not permitted to be disclosed to him pursuant to Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
("DOC") policy . Pursuant to DC-ADM 003, Release of Information, inmates are not
permitted access to the records of their fellow inmates. 	See DC-ADM 003,
https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/cor/documents/about-us/doc-
policies/003%20Release%20of%20lnformation.pdf (last visited Jan. 8, 2026). The policy
states, in relevant part, "[a]n inmate is prohibited from receiving inmate information
pertaining to another inmate other than him/herself." (Id. § IV.A.5).
And, as argued by Defendants, there are sound security and confidentiality reasons
to prohibit inmates from obtaining such information about one another. 	(Doc. 56, at 7-8) .
Courts within the Third Circuit have rejected similar discovery requests as unduly infringing
upon the privacy interests of other inmates. 	See, e.g. , Robinson v. Folino, 2016 WL
7
Case 3:24-cv-00022-RDM-CA Document 75 Filed 01/09/26 Page 7 of 8

4678340, at *3 (W.D . Pa . Sept. 7, 2016) ("Misconducts filed against inmates ... wou ld
necessarily contain information regarding those inmates that Plaintiff should not be privy to
for both privacy and security reasons"). Accordingly, Defendants' objection to this request is
sustained and Hill's motion to compel is denied as to the production of his fellow inmate's
misconduct reports .
IV. 	Conclusion
Consistent with the foregoing, Hill's motion to compel will be granted in part and
denied in part. 	(Doc . 48). A separate Order shall issue.
)
...
Ro ert D. Mariani
United States District Judge
Dated : January 	q ,2026
8
Case 3:24-cv-00022-RDM-CA Document 75 Filed 01/09/26 Page 8 of 8