Bolden v. Reynolds et al
ORDER denying without prejudice 50 motion to appoint counsel; granting 56 motion for status update; directing the Clerk of Court to mail Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet for this case; and denying 57 motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 2/7/2024. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CARSON DeWAYNE BOLDEN, JR.
No: 3:22-cv-00202 BRW-PSH
PHIL REYNOLDS, et al.
Before the Court is a motion by Plaintiff Carson DeWayne Bolden, Jr.
(“Plaintiff”) to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 50). Plaintiff claims he has suffered a
head injury and is suffering from memory loss. He has not produced any evidence
to support his allegation, and has not explained how his injury affects his ability to
prosecute this case. His motion to appoint counsel is therefore DENIED without
prejudice. If Plaintiff believes he is unable to prosecute his case because of a head
injury, he should provide documentation of such injury with another motion and
explain how it prevents him from pursuing this case without counsel.
Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a status update (Doc. No. 56).
This motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a copy
of the docket sheet for this case.
Finally, Plaintiff has filed a motion asking the Court to subpoena certain
documents (Doc. No. 57). This motion is DENIED. The information he seeks
should have been sought in discovery. And as the Court has previously explained
to Plaintiff, see Doc. No. 54, discovery requests are not to be filed with the Court B
but, instead, should be sent directly to opposing counsel, along with a certificate of
service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). The Court also notes that the deadline for
discovery in this case has already passed. See Doc. No. 43.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of February, 2024.
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?