Mosby v. Kelley

Filing 31

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 24 Motion for Medical Examination; denying 25 Motion to Stay Case; denying, as moot 26 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply; denying, as moot 27 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 01/26/2012. (kcs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION

ROGER D. MOSBY,
ADC #63018
V.

PLAINTIFF
5:11CV00301 SWW/JTR

WENDY KELLEY, Deputy Director,
Arkansas Department of Correction

DEFENDANT

ORDER
I. Introduction
Plaintiff, Roger D. Mosby, has commenced this § 1983 action alleging that
Defendant is failing to provide him with adequate medical car for chest pains and
shortness of breath. See docket entry #2. On December 19, 2011, Defendant filed a
Motion arguing that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should be revoked because
he is not – in fact – currently in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See
docket entry #7.
On January 23, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for copies of his
relevant medical records. See docket entry #28. In that Order, the Court gave: (1)
Defendant until February 1, 2012 to provide Plaintiff with his medical records; and
(2) Plaintiff until February 15, 2012, to review those records and file his Response to
the Motion to Revoke. Id. Plaintiff recently has filed several nondispositive Motions,

which the Court will address separately.
II. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Medical Examination
and his Motion to Stay the Case
Plaintiff has filed a Motion asking that the Court to order a private physician
to conduct a “whole body” examination so that it may be determined whether he is
currently in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See docket entry #24.
Additionally, he has filed a Motion asking the Court to stay this case until such a
medical exam can be completed. See docket entry #25.
The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the payment of Plaintiff’s
discovery costs or witness fees by Defendants or the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)
and (f); U.S. Marshals Serv. v. Means, 741 F.2d 1053, 1057 (8th Cir. 1984); Lewis v.
Precision Optics, Inc., 612 F.2d 1074 (8th Cir. 1980). Additionally, a private medical
examination is not necessary because the Court will determine whether Plaintiff in
currently in imminent danger of serious physical injury by reviewing his prison
medical records and any relevant affidavits. Accordingly, the Motion for a Medical
Exam and the Motion to Stay are denied.
III. Plaintiff’s Motions for an Extension of Time
Plaintiff has filed two Motions seeking an extension of time, until January 28,
2012, to file his Response to Defendant’s Motion to Revoke his In Forma Pauperis
status. See docket entries #26 and #27.
-2-

As previously discussed, the Court has

already given Plaintiff an extension, until February 15, 2012, to file his Response.
Thus, his Motions for an Extension of Time are denied, as moot.
IV. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Medical Examination (docket entry #24) is

DENIED.
3.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay the Case (docket entry #25) is DENIED.

4.

Plaintiff’s Motions for an Extension of Time (docket entries #26 and #27)

are DENIED, AS MOOT.
Dated this 26th day of January, 2012.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-