Bolden v. Reynolds et al

Filing 58

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)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION CARSON DeWAYNE BOLDEN, JR. v. PLAINTIFF No: 3:22-cv-00202 BRW-PSH PHIL REYNOLDS, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER 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 2

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?