Solomon v. Southern Health Partners et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying 9 Motion for Order. Plaintiff is ordered not to file any additional motion until Complaint has been screened, service ordered and Defendants have answered. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on May 24, 2016. (mll)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION CLIFTON ORLANDO SOLOMON v. PLAINTIFF Civil No. 4:16-cv-04038 SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS; and STEVEN KING, Head Nurse, Miller County Detention Center DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff Clifton O. Solomon proceeds in this matter pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Order. ECF No. 9. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires the Court to review complaints in civil actions in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity to determine if the matter shall proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court is in the process of screening Plaintiff’s Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Order requesting assistance from this Court to obtain copies of medical information, copies of grievances and other documents from the Defendants is premature. In the event the case proceeds, Plaintiff will have the opportunity to participate in discovery and file any motions needed to assist Plaintiff in obtaining the information he has requested. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Subpoena (ECF No. 9) is DENIED. This is the second time in less than a month Plaintiff has filed a premature motion for information. PLAINTIFF IS ORDERED NOT TO FILE ANY ADDITIONAL MOTIONS UNTIL AFTER HIS COMPLAINT HAS BEEN SCREENED, SERVICE HAS BEEN ORDERED, 1    AND DEFENDANTS HAVE ANSWERED. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY SUBJECT THIS CASE TO DISMISSAL. DATED this 24th day of May 2016. /s/ Barry A. Bryant________ HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE   2   

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?