Swinton v. Wright et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 21 Motion to Subpoena Witnesses. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 12/6/2016. (Landman, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

GREGORY SWINTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARSON WRIGHT, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-659 (SRU)

RULING ON MOTION TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES
Gregory Swinton has filed a motion asking the Court to issue and serve subpoenas to
enable him to depose three persons by oral examination.
Although Swinton was permitted to file this case in forma pauperis, that status does not
entitle him to discovery costs or litigation services. See Riddick v. Chevalier, 2012 WL
3289079, at *1 (D. Conn. Aug. 9, 2012); see also, e.g., Hawks v. Diina, 2006 WL 2806557, at *4
(W.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2006) (holding that court may not authorize commitment of federal funds to
underwrite discovery and litigation expenses of an indigent civil litigant’s action); Garraway v.
Morabito, 2003 WL 21051724, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. May 8, 2003) (informing pro se litigant that in
forma pauperis status does not waive costs of litigation or discovery). Nor are the defendants
responsible for financing Swinton’s discovery costs. See Doe v. United States, 112 F.R.D. 183,
185 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). Swinton is not entitled to have the court serve deposition subpoenas on his
behalf.
Swinton’s motion to subpoena witnesses [Doc. # 21] is DENIED. If he has sufficient
funds to arrange for the depositions, he may notice and conduct the depositions in accordance

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30.
SO ORDERED this 6th day of December 2016 at Bridgeport, Connecticut.

/s/STEFAN R. UNDERHILL
Stefan R. Underhill
United States District Judge

2