Johnson v. Adams

Filing 25

ORDER denying 16 Motion to Compel; denying 17 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 18 Motion to Compel; denying 19 Motion for Discovery. The Clerk is directed to refrain from filing any future discovery from Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 9/21/12. (kpr)

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

DWAYNE E. JOHNSON
V.

PLAINTIFF
5:12CV00131 DPM/JTR

ED ADAMS, Captain,
Brassell Detention Center

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Plaintiff, Dwayne Johnson, is a pretrial detainee who is proceeding pro se in
this § 1983 action. He has recently filed several non-dispositive Motions, which the
Court will address separately.
I. Plaintiff’s Discovery Motions
Plaintiff has filed a “Determination of Motion to Suppress Evidence,” a
“Motion to Produce,” and a “Motion for Discovery.” See docket entries #16, #18, and
#19. In those pleadings, Plaintiff asks Defendant to produce various documents,
surveillance video footage, and other information. However, none of the documents
contain a certificate of service or otherwise indicate whether Plaintiff sent his
discovery requests to Defendant, prior to seeking Court intervention.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d) provides that all discovery requests and
resposes, along with a certificate of service, must be mailed directly to opposing

counsel, and not filed in the record. If Defendant does not timely or properly respond
to written discovery, Plaintiff must first, in good faith, attempt to resolve his discovery
disputes with him. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 34, 36, and 37; Local Rule 7.2(g). Only
after Plaintiff has been unsuccessful in doing so, may he then file a Motion to Compel
with the Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s discovery Motions are denied as premature,
and the Clerk will be directed to refrain from docketing any future discovery from
him.
II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint
Plaintiff has filed a Motion seeking permission to add a claim that BDC officers
are punishing him and harassing his family members in retaliation for him filing this
lawsuit. See docket entry #17.
It is well settled that a prisoner must have exhausted his administrative remedies
as to each and every claim prior to commencing his lawsuit in federal court. See 28
U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003); Graves v.
Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir. 2000). The alleged retaliatory acts occurred after
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on April 12, 2012.
Thus, if Plaintiff wishes to pursue his retaliation claims, he must: (1) fully and
properly exhaust his administrative remedies at the BDC; and (2) file a new § 1983
action raising that claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to amend the Complaint to

-2-

add a retaliation claim is denied. See Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488,
497 (8th Cir. 2008) (holding that a court may deny a plaintiff’s motion to amend the
complaint when such amendment would be futile); In re Senior Cottages of America,
LLC, 482 F.3d 997, 1001 (8th Cir. 2007) (same).
III. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s Discovery Motions (docket entries #16, #18, and #19) are

DENIED.
2.

The Clerk is directed to REFRAIN from filing any future discovery from

Plaintiff.
3.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (docket entry #17) is

DENIED.
Dated this 21st day of September, 2012.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-