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)

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-