Caldwell v. Kelly et al

Filing 95

ORDER denying 81 Plaintiff's Motion to Validate and Authenticate Documents; denying 87 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment; granting 88 Plaintiff's Motion for Ruling; and denying 90 Plaintiff's Motion for Copies. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 01/15/2015. (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. Doc.
2. Plaintiff has recently filed four nondispositive Motions, which the Court will
address separately.
I. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Ruling
Plaintiff has recently filed a Motion seeking a ruling on his Motion to Validate
and Authenticate Documents. Doc. 88. The Motion for a Ruling is granted.
II. Plaintiff's Motion to Validate and Authenticate Documents
Plaintiff alleges that, on November 29, 2014, Defendants improperly mailed
him copies of their Motion for Summary Judgment, Statement of Undisputed Facts,
and Brief in Support that did not include a file stamp. Docs. 76, 77, & 78.
Accordingly, he has filed a Motion asking the Court to “validate and authenticate”

Defendants’ summary judgment papers by instructing the Clerk to mail him file
stamped copies of those pleadings. Doc. 81. Plaintiff’s request is moot because the
Clerk has already mailed him file stamped copies of Defendants’ summary judgment
papers. Id. Thus, the Motion is denied.1
III. Plaintiff’s Motion for Copies
Plaintiff has filed a Motion seeking a copy of an envelope he allegedly included
as an exhibit to his Motion to Validate and Authenticate Documents. Docs. 81 & 90.
The Court did not receive any such envelope. Thus, the Motion is denied.
IV. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment
On December 1, 2014, the Court entered an Order directing Defendants Iko,
Floss, and York to file, within fourteen days, supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s
discovery requests. Doc. 79. Plaintiff has filed a Motion arguing that he is entitled
to default judgment, as a discovery sanction, because Defendants Iko, Floss, and York
did not comply with the Court’s December 1, 2014 Order. Doc. 87. Plaintiff’s Motion
is denied because, on December 15, 2014, Defendants timely and properly filed their
supplemental responses. Doc. 82. Thus, the Motion for Default Judgment is denied.

1

The Court wishes to explain to Plaintiff that defendants often mail plaintiffs courtesy copies
of dispositive motions at the same time that they mail those dispositive motions to the Clerk for
filing in the record. Thus, it is not unusual for plaintiffs to receive a non-file stamped copy of a
dispositive motion from the defendants and then, a few days later, a file stamped copy of those same
documents from the Clerk.
-2-

V. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff's Motion for a Ruling (Doc. 88) is GRANTED.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Validate and Authenticate Documents (Doc. 81) is

DENIED.
3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Default Judgment (Doc. 87) is DENIED.

4.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Copies (Doc. 90) is DENIED.

Dated this 15th day of January, 2015.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-