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)

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-