Hampton v. Brazell et al
ORDER denying 6 Motion for Order; denying 13 Motion to Compel; denying 20 Motion for Issuance of Subpoena; granting in part 25 Motion to Compel; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE for Defendants' failure to obey the Order of the Court. (Show Cause Response due by 1/25/2016.) Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on January 14, 2016. (mll)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
BOBBY JOE HAMPTON
Civil No. 4:15-cv-04037
WARDEN MARTY BRAZELL;
SERGEANT MOON; and MILLER
COUNTY MEDICAL STAFF
Pending before me for decision are the following motions filed by the Plaintiff: (1) a Motion
for Order (ECF No. 6); (2) a Motion to Compel (ECF No. 13); (3) a Motion for Issuance of a
Subpoena (ECF No. 20); and (4) a Motion to Compel (ECF No. 25). Also before the Court is the
issue of the identification of the Miller County Medical Staff.
Motion for Order (ECF No. 6)
In this Motion, Plaintiff states that the jail has not been deducting a portion of his monthly
account balance for payment of the filing fee. He wants the Court to know that he filed a grievance
asking the Defendants why this is not being done. He states he does not want the Defendants’ failure
to deduct the funds to delay the progress of the case.
The Motion (ECF No. 6) is DENIED. Whether or not the detention center is properly paying
over the filing fee, does not impact the progress of this case.
Motion to Compel (ECF No. 13)
This document contains Plaintiff’s statements about the impact of being on lock down. He
does not seek to compel discovery from the Defendants. He does not ask the Court to take any
action. Therefore, the Motion (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.
Motion for Issuance of a Subpoena (ECF No. 20)
This Motion appears to be the Plaintiff’s initial request for the production of documents from
the Defendants. Plaintiff does not need a subpoena to obtain discovery documents from the
Defendants. Instead, Plaintiff may serve discovery requests directly on Defendants’ counsel. The
Motion (ECF No. 20) is DENIED.
Motion to Compel (ECF No. 25)
In this Motion, Plaintiff states the Defendants have deliberately failed to produce a
disciplinary report dated July 17, 2014, and an inmate medical request dated February 14, 2013.
Defendants state they have produced the Plaintiff’s entire jail file. With respect to the medical
request, Defendant state that all health records are maintained and stored by Southern Health
Partners. Plaintiff replied noting that he did receive materials from the Defendants but that neither
the disciplinary report nor medical request was among them.
The Motion (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED IN PART. Defendants are directed to provide the
Plaintiff with an affidavit, from a person with knowledge, explaining how disciplinary reports are
kept; whether the report dated July 17, 2014, by Deputy B. Griffie is in the Plaintiff’s jail file; if it
is, why it was not produced; and, if the report is not in the jail file, why it was not.
If the Plaintiff wants the Court to issue a subpoena to Southern Health Partners, Inc., he is
directed to file a Motion for Issuance of a Subpoena. The Motion should include the time frame for
which he wants the documents produced.
By Order (ECF No. 7) entered on May 27, 2015, Defendants were directed to provide the
names of the nurses who worked at the Miller County Detention Center in July of 2014, so that the
John Doe nurses could be identified. The information was to be provided within twenty-one days
of service of the Complaint.
Defendants did not identify the nurses in their Answer (ECF No. 11). Defendants have not
filed a separate document identifying these nurses. Defendants are given until January 25, 2016,
to show cause for their failure to obey the Order of the Court. In their response to this Order,
Defendants are directed to provide the names of the nurses and a last known, or service, address for
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of January 2016.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?