Williams v. Harmon et al
ORDER denying 57 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 9/14/09. (bkp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION DAVID WILLIAMS, ADC #78730 V. GREG HARMON, Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, et al. ORDE R On August 24, 2009, the Court entered an Order explaining to Plaintiff that he must mail his discovery requests directly to the Attorney General's Office, and not file them with the Court. See docket entry #52. The Court also instructed the Clerk to refrain from filing any more discovery requests submitted by Plaintiff, unless they were attached to an appropriate motion or pleading. Id. On August 31, 2009, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Compel," alleging that he cannot comply with the Court's August 24, 2009 Order because the Varner Unit mailroom will not allow him to send any mail directly to the Attorney General's Office.1 See docket entry #57. In support of that contention, Plaintiff has produced a March 11, 2009 Memorandum from the Varner Unit Business Manager, stating that unspecified "legal mail" addressed to the Attorney General's Office is being returned to Plaintiff. Id., attachment. The Memorandum further explains that Plaintiff should mail the original and two copies of any "petitions and motions" directly to the Court. Id. Thereafter, the Court will file the original, return one copy to Plaintiff, and forward the second copy to the Attorney General's Office. Id. 2:09CV00044 BSM/JTR DEFENDANTS
The Motion is more properly characterized as a Motion for Reconsideration of the August 24, 2009 Order.
Importantly, the Memorandum discusses the mailing of petitions and motions. It does not limit Plaintiff's ability to mail discovery directly to the Attorney General's Office. Furthermore, the Court notes that the Memorandum is dated March 11, 2009, which was approximately one month before Plaintiff commenced this action. Thus, the Court finds no support for Plaintiff's allegation that he is unable to properly comply with the Court's August 24, 2009 Order. Finally, the Court emphasizes to Plaintiff that he must ascertain valid serve addresses for the remaining Defendants by mailing proper discovery requests (rather than Motions to Compel) directly to the Attorney General's Office. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (docket entry #57), which has been construed as a Motion for Reconsideration of the August 24, 2009 Order, is DENIED. Dated this 14th day of September, 2009. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?