Waller v. Kelley et al

Filing 93

ORDER denying 84 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Plaintiff's requests for appointment of counsel and for an extension of the time to complete discovery, both of which are contained in his Motion to Compel, are denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 10/01/2012. (kcs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION

KENNETH L. WALLER JR.,
ADC #103829
V.

PLAINTIFF

1:11CV00095 JLH/JTR

WENDY KELLEY, Deputy Director,
Arkansas Department of Correction, et al,

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff, Kenneth L. Waller Jr., has filed this pro se § 1983 action alleging,
among other things, that nine employees of Corizon, Inc., failed to provide him with
adequate medical care for a variety of digestive problems. See docket entries #2 and
#11.
On September 4, 2012, which was after the discovery deadline expired, Plaintiff
filed a Motion asking the Court to compel Defendants Bagwell, Horn, Nance,
Bridgemen, Armstrong, Waldrupe, and Gilbert to answer separate sets of
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents that he allegedly sent to
each of them on July 18, 2012.1 See docket entry #84.
1

For unexplained reasons, the certificates of service attached to each of those
discovery requests state that Plaintiff mailed them to defense counsel on June 7, 2012,
rather than on July 18, 2012, as alleged by Plaintiff in the Motion to Compel. Id.,
attachments.

Defense counsel states that she never received the Interrogatories and Requests
for Production for those seven Defendants.2 See docket entry #86. She further
explains that Plaintiff did not, prior to filing his Motion to Compel, contact her about
the discovery requests she alleged failed to answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and
Local Rule 7.2(g) (providing that, prior to filing a motion to compel, the movant must
have attempted to confer with the opposing party in good faith effort to resolve the
specific discovery issue, and that the court may summarily deny the motion if he fails
to do so).
Additionally, Defendants have previously provided Plaintiff, at his request,
with: (1) their job descriptions; (2) medical treatment protocols; and (3) access to his
complete prison medical file. See docket entry #86, Exs. B, C, and D. Plaintiff can
obtain the relevant information he seeks in his Motion to Compel from those
documents.
Finally, in the Motion to Compel, Plaintiff asks the Court to extend the
discovery deadline and to appoint him counsel. The Court has previously denied
Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel, and he has not set forth a sufficient
reason to reconsider that ruling. See docket entry #65. Similarly, the Court has

2

In contrast, defense counsel received separate sets of Interrogatories and
Requests for Production of Documents for Defendants Hutchinson and Cowell, which
she answered. Id., Exs. A and B.
-2-

previously granted Plaintiff an extension of time to complete discovery, and he has not
provided a sufficient explanation as to why the Court should do so again. See docket
entry #73. Accordingly, both requests are denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (docket entry #84) is DENIED.

2.

Plaintiff’s requests for appointment of counsel and for an extension of

the time to complete discovery, both of which are contained in his Motion to Compel,
are DENIED.
Dated this 1st day of October, 2012.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-