Crawford v. Peikar et al

Filing 101

ORDER denying 95 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Interrogatories. All of the requests made in Plaintiff's Response to the 11/12/2013 Order 96 are denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 01/15/2014. (kcs)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HELENA DIVISION JEFFERY L. CRAWFORD, Reg. #35243-044 V. PLAINTIFF 2:12CV00224 SWW/JTR NADER PEIKAR, Doctor, FCI-FC, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff, Jeffery L. Crawford, is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this Bivens action. He has recently filed two nondispositive pleadings, which the Court will address separately. I. Motion to Strike Interrogatories from the Record Plaintiff has filed a “Motion to Strike Interrogatories from the Record.” Doc. 95. In that Motion, Plaintiff seeks permission to withdraw certain portions of his previously drafted interrogatories to Defendants. Plaintiff does not need to obtain permission from the Court to do so. As previously explained in the September 13, 2013 Order, all discovery requests, responses, and revisions must be mailed directly to Defendants’ attorney – and not filed with the Court. Doc. 79; Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Thus, the Motion to Strike Interrogatories from the Record is denied. II. Response to November 12, 2013 Order On November 12, 2013, the Court entered an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel and his Motion for Discovery. Docs. 83, 85, 86, & 92. On December 2, 2103, Plaintiff filed a disjointed and confusing Response to that Order. In the Response, Plaintiff asks the Court to issue a “writ of mandamus” requiring the U.S. Attorney to make initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. However, both parties in this pro se prisoner actions are exempt from doing so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv). Instead, Plaintiff must obtain relevant information by mailing interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admission directly to Defendants’ attorney. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 34, & 36. Plaintiff also makes the bizarre allegation that he has obtained or is entitled to a default judgment. At the beginning of this lawsuit, the Court granted Defendants an extension, until May 20, 2013, to file their Answer or responsive pleading. Doc. 35. On May 20, 2013, separate Defendants Rios and Resto-Rivera timely filed a Motion to Dismiss (which is a responsive pleading), and that Motion was granted. Docs. 50 & 61. The remaining Defendants timely filed their Answer on May 20, 2013. Doc. 52. Thus, Plaintiff has not been granted, nor is he entitled to, a default judgment against any of the Defendants. Finally, it appears that Plaintiff is asking the Court to appoint a medical expert -2- to conduct a “comprehensive” neurological exam and testify on Plaintiff’s behalf. The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the payment of Plaintiff’s discovery costs or witness fees by Defendants or the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and (f); U.S. Marshals Serv. v. Means, 741 F.2d 1053,1057 (8th Cir. 1984); Lewis v. Precision Optics, Inc., 612 F.2d 1074 (8th Cir. 1980). According that request is denied. III. Conclusion IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Interrogatories from the Record (Doc. 95) is DENIED. 2. All of the requests made in Plaintiff’s Response to the November 12, 2013 Order (Doc. 96) are DENIED. Dated this 15th day of January, 2014. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -3-

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?