McClanton v. Payment et al

Filing 31

ORDER denying 25 Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents. The Clerk is directed to refrain from docketing any future written discovery from Plaintiff. Further, 22 Plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 1/29/2013. (jak)

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

RODNEY W. MCCLANTON,
ADC #108785
V.

PLAINTIFF

3:12CV00252 JLH/JTR

PAUL PAYMENT, Jailer,
Crittenden County Detention Facility, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff, Rodney W. McClanton, has filed this pro se § 1983 action alleging
that, on October 16, 2012, Defendants used excessive force against him at the
Crittenden County Detention Facility (“CDDF”). There are two non-dispositive
Motions pending, which the Court will address separately.
I. Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents
On January 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed an untitled pleading which the Clerk
docketed as a Request for Production of Documents. See docket entry #25. In that
pleading, Plaintiff asked the Court to “retrieve evidence” from the Defendants. Id.
It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to obtain evidence to support his claims. Plaintiff
must do so through discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 34, 36, and 37. Importantly,
discovery requests and responses are NOT to be filed with the Court.

Instead,

Plaintiff must mail his discovery requests and responses directly to Defendants’

attorney, along with a certificate of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s request is denied, and the Clerk will be directed to refrain from docketing
any future written discovery from him.
II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas
Plaintiff has filed a Motion asking the Court to “subpoena the ENTIRE morning
staff” that was working at the CCDF on October 16, 2012. See docket entry #22
(emphasis in the original). Plaintiff’s request is over broad and premature.
If this case proceeds to trial, the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to name
his potential witnesses and explain their expected testimony. If the Court determines
that any such witnesses have relevant testimony to provide, it will issue the necessary
subpoenas. Accordingly, the Motion is denied.
III. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (docket entry #25),

which has been construed as a Motion to Compel, is DENIED.
2.

The Clerk is directed to REFRAIN from docketing any future written

discovery from Plaintiff.
3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas (docket entry #22) is

DENIED.
-2-

Dated this 29th day of January, 2013.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-