Givler v. Blount County Adult Detention Center et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying plaintiff's 13 Motion to Clarify Cases and denying plaintiff's 14 Motion for Free Copies of All Documents due to In Forma Pauperis Status. Signed by District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 3/20/12. (c/m) (ADA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
MARK W. GIVLER,
and KATHY WALKER,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This is a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff,
who is confined in the Blount County Detention Center, alleged he was assaulted by
defendants Fancher and Lambert, and denied medical attention by defendant Walker. When
plaintiff failed to return the service packets for the defendants, the action was dismissed
without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to comply with the orders of the Court.
Plaintiff then filed a motion to clarify cases and a motion for free copies of all documents in
this case and his three other pending cases.
In his motion to clarify, plaintiff states that he filed this action when he had not heard
anything about his prior case against the defendants. As plaintiff points out, he has an earlier
filed case against the same defendants on the same claims. Mark W. Givler v. Jeffery
Plaintiff also named as a defendant the Blount County Adult Detention Center, which was
dismissed by the Court sua sponte because it is not a suable entity under § 1983.
Lambert, Bill Fancher, and Kathy Walker, Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-179 (E.D. Tenn.).
According to plaintiff, after mailing this complaint, he received the paperwork on the
previously filed case and assumed the second complaint would be stricken from the record.
As plaintiff also points out, he completed the service packets in the previous case. Plaintiff's
motion to clarify is more of an explanation than a motion, and for that reason the motion
[Doc. 13] is DENIED.
In his motion for copies, plaintiff asks that copies of all documents in this case and
his three other pending cases be sent free of charge to him and his sister, Ruthe Givler, who
he states is an out-of-work paralegal. Plaintiff does not state why he needs copies of
documents that should already be in his possession and his sister, who is not a party to the
case, clearly is not entitled to free copies of pleadings in plaintiff's cases. The motion for
copies [Doc. 14] is DENIED.
s/ Thomas A. Varlan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE