Caldwell v. Kelly et al

Filing 15

ORDER granting 6 Plaintiff's Motion to Clarify; denying 9 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Expert; granting 12 Defendants' Motion to Take Deposition from John Caldwell; and granting 14 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 04/08/2014. (kcs)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION JOHN CALDWELL, ADC #90188 V. PLAINTIFF 5:14CV00042 BSM/JTR WENDY KELLEY, Deputy Director of Health Services, ADC, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff, John Caldwell, has filed this pro se § 1983 action alleging that Defendants failed to provide him with constitutionally adequate medical care for chronic muscle wasting and arthritis. Doc. 2. The parties have filed several nondispositive Motions, which the Court will address separately. I. Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification Plaintiff asks the Court to clarify the portion of the February 27, 2014 Order certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. Doc. 6. The Motion is granted. That language means that based on well established 8th Circuit decisions, the Court believes an appeal of its February 27, 2014 Order would be without merit. If Plaintiff wishes to appeal any portion of that Order, he must either pay the $455 appellate filing fee in full or obtain permission, from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. II. Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint a Medical Expert Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint a medical expert to testify on his behalf and help him prepare his case for trial. Doc. 9. 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). Accordingly, the Motion is denied. III. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Plaintiff has filed a "Motion to Amend," which is more properly characterized as a Motion for Clarification. Doc. 14. In that pleading, Plaintiff explains that he referred to the wrong docket numbers in his previously filed Motions. Docs. 6 & 9. Plaintiff's docket corrections are duly noted. Additionally, the Court will send Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet in this case. Thus, the Motion is granted. IV. Defendants' Motion to Depose Plaintiff Defendants seek permission to depose Plaintiff. Doc. 12. The Court finds good cause for granting that request, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(B). V. Conclusion IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: -2- 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification (Doc. 6) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint a Medical Expert (Doc. 9) is DENIED. 3. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, which is more properly characterized as a Motion for Clarification (Doc. 14), is GRANTED. 4. Defendants' Motion to Depose Plaintiff (Doc. 12) is GRANTED. Dated this 8th day of April, 2014. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -3-

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?