Crawford v. Brazell et al

Filing 25

ORDER granting 22 Motion to Compel; granting 24 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff's required responses to Defendants' discovery requests due by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, January 11, 2016. Signed by Honorable James R. Marschewski on December 7, 2015. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
STICOTTI DEMONCE CRAWFORD
v.

PLAINTIFF

Civil No.4:14-cv-04149-SOH-JRM

WARDEN MARTY BRAZELL, ET. AL.

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Plaintiff, Sticotti Demonce Crawford, proceeds in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se and
in forma pauperis. According to Plaintiff’s address of record, he is currently not incarcerated.
Currently before the Court is Defendant Brazell’s First Motion to Compel (ECF. No. 22), and a
Motion to Compel by Defendants Harris and Perry. ECF No. 24.
On November 22, 2015 Defendant Brazell filed a Motion to Compel. In his Motion,
Defendant Brazell states he first served propounded Interrogatories and Discovery Requests,
including a Medical Authorization, to Plaintiff on April 21, 2015. Plaintiff did not respond. On
November 5, 2015, Defendant sent a second request asking Plaintiff to respond to the discovery
request and informing Plaintiff, if he failed to respond, Defendant would file a motion to compel.
Plaintiff again failed to respond. ECF No. 22.
On December 3, 2015, Defendants Harris and Perry filed a Motion to Compel. In their
Motion, they state they served Plaintiff with discovery requests, including a Medical Authorization,
on or about October 14, 2015. Plaintiff did not respond. On November 20, 2015, Defendants sent
a second request asking Plaintiff to respond to the discovery request and informing Plaintiff, if he
failed to respond, Defendants would file a motion to compel. Plaintiff again failed to respond.
ECF No. 24.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff is afforded thirty (30) days to respond

to discovery requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2) & 34(b)(2)(A). Plaintiff did not request an
extension of time to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to
respond in the time provided by law.
Accordingly, Defendant Brazell’s First Motion to Compel (ECF. No. 22), and the Motion
to Compel by Defendants Harris and Perry (ECF No. 24) are GRANTED. Plaintiff is
DIRECTED to provide Defendants with the required responses to the discovery requests by 5:00
p.m. on Monday, January 11, 2016. Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with this Order
may result in the dismissal of this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of December 2015.
/s/ J. Marschewski
HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2