Brown v. Collins et al

Filing 40

ORDER denying 39 Motion for subpoena. Brown's unlawful arrest claims against Detective Ronnie Williams and Lieutenant Tyler Standefer remain pending. Brown did not provide the Court sufficient information to determine how Hill's testimony may be relevant to Brown's claims. Rather, the testimony appears to have no bearing on Brown's pending claims. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 11/19/2020. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
SIDNEY LADELL BROWN
ADC #111805
V.

PLAINTIFF

CASE NO. 3:19-cv-00054 JM

OLLIE COLLINS, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Plaintiff Sidney Ladell Brown’s Motion for Subpoena (Doc. No. 39) is DENIED.
Brown explains that according to his paperwork, this Court’s earlier show cause Order
(Doc. No. 25) was delivered and accepted by the Osceola Police Department, though the
initials of Dispatch Officer Jessica Hill do not appear on the signature of acceptance. (Doc.
No. 39 at 1). Brown questions “why they would say the U.S. Marshal didn’t come to their
correct address when this is their workplace and (all) mail is placed in their workers box.”
(Id. at 2). Brown seeks a subpoena directing Jessica Hill to appear at trial “to identify the
initials on documentation as evidence because the mail received shows another initials
J.W. not J.H.” (Id.)
Jessica Hill a non-party to this case. “Courts exercising inherent supervisory power
over in forma pauperis subpoenas generally consider factors such as the relevance and
materiality of the information requested and the necessity of the particular testimony or
documents to proving the [plaintiff’s] case.” Simmons v. Dodson, No. 14 CV167 ACL,
2016 WL 2958030, at *2 (E.D. Mo. May 23, 2016) (internal citation omitted). Courts
“retain[] the discretion to refuse to issue Rule 45 subpoenas to nonparties . . . .” (Id.)

Brown’s unlawful arrest claims against Detective Ronnie Williams and Lieutenant
Tyler Standefer1 remain pending. (Doc. No. 13). Brown did not provide the Court
sufficient information to determine how Hill’s testimony may be relevant to Brown’s
claims. Rather, the testimony appears to have no bearing on Brown’s pending claims.
Accordingly, Brown’s Motion for Subpoena (Doc. No. 39) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of November, 2020.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The Clerk of the Court is directed to change Defendant Tyler’s name on the docket to Tyler
Standefer.
2