Handy v. Diggins et al

Filing 199

ORDER. ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery 188 is DENIED without prejudice, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 7/16/12.(sgrim)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 10–cv–02022–WYD–KMT

WYATT T. HANDY JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHIEF DIGGINS, individual & official capacity,
MAJOR V. CONNORS, individual & official capacity,
CHAPLAIN SCOTT, individual & official capacity,
MR. BURRIS, individual & official capacity, and
PANEL OF ISLAMIC CLERICS, individual & official capacity
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Motion for an Order Compelling
Discovery.” (Doc. No. 188, filed June 15, 2012 [Mot.].) Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the
Panel of Islamic Clerics to respond to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories. (Mot, Ex. A.)
Plaintiff’s Motion is denied without prejudice. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33
provides that interrogatories may only be served on a party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). The
Panel of Islamic Clerics has not been served with Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint and
therefore is not a party to this action. Loans Ins. Corp. v. Tullos-Pierremont, 894 F.2d 1469,
1475 (5th Cir. 1990) (the term parties is used to designate only those who are named as such in
the record and have properly been served with process or entered an appearance). Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s attempt to serve interrogatories on the Panel of Islamic Clerics was not proper and, as
a consequence, the court cannot compel the Panel of Islamic Clerics to respond to Plaintiff’s
interrogatories.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery” (Doc. No. 188)
is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 16th day of July, 2012.

2