Stevens v. Doe et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying 16 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel; denying 17 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend; denying 19 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiff copies of 14 , 15 and 16 along with this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 12/02/2014. (kcs)

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

JIMMY DON STEVENS,
V.

PLAINTIFF
4:14CV00379 JM/JTR

USA

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel (Docs. 16, 19) and
his Motion to Amend (Doc. 17). The Court will address each in turn.
I. Motions to Compel
Plaintiff’s first Motion to Compel seeks production of unspecified records kept
by the estate of one Victor G. Hill. Doc. 16 at 1-2. Plaintiff also seeks unspecified
records kept by the district attorney and public defender of Oklahoma County,
Oklahoma, the Department of Veteran’s Affairs Mental Health Clinic in Oklahoma
City, and Oklahoma’s Employee Assistance Program. Id. at 2-3. It is unclear what
relevance, if any, these records have to the immediate action. Regardless, none of the
aforementioned entities are parties to this action and the Court cannot compel them
to provide Plaintiff’s requested discovery.
Plaintiff’s second Motion to Compel seeks to require the Washington County

-1-

Detention Center to release his Court mail. Doc. 19 at 1. Specifically, he alleges that
he is missing Documents 14, 15, and 16. Id. As the Washington County Detention
Center is not a party to this action, the Court cannot compel it to release his mail. The
Court will, however, direct the Clerk of Court to mail Plaintiff copies of Documents,
14, 15, and 16 with this Order.
II. Motion to Amend
Pursuant to his Motion to Amend, Plaintiff describes the administration of
drugs to control his pain. Doc. 17 at 3. He does not allege, however, how the
administration of these drugs, or the lack thereof, injured him. Nor does he specify
how these drugs are related to the alleged shoulder injury which forms the basis of his
current Federal Torts Act Claim. Absent such a nexus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s
Motion to Amend should be denied.
III. Conclusion
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 16) is DENIED.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 19) is DENIED.

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiff copies of Documents 14,

15, and 16 with this Order.

-2-

4.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 17) is DENIED.
Dated this 2nd day of December, 2014.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-