Morris v. James T. Vaughn Correctional Center
Filing
100
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 2/11/2021. (lak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
TYRONE J. MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARLA COOPER,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 18-252-RGA
MEMORANDUM
1.
Introduction. Plaintiff Tyrone J. Morris, an inmate at the James T.
Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware, filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (D.I. 1). He appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. (D.I. 7). The Second Amended Complaint (D.I. 18) is the operative
pleading. Before the Court are several motions filed by Plaintiff. (D.I. 74, 75, 76, 79,
85, 86, 89, 90, 95).
2.
Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to
respond to pending motions. (D.I. 74). The motion will be dismissed as moot. All
pending motions filed prior to the Docket Item 74 have been ruled upon.
3.
Motion to Amend. Plaintiff moves to amend the Second Amended
Complaint to add mental suffering and/or add to the amended version Plaintiff submitted
on January 21, 2020. (D.I. 75; D.I. 75-1 at 16 of 18). The motion will be granted to the
extent that the prayer for relief now reads, “Light therapy – proper care maintained[;]
$400,000 for pain and suffering, and mental anguish suffering” and will otherwise be
denied.
1
4.
Motion to Compel Sealed Volumes. Plaintiff moves the Court to compel
Defendant to produce his sealed medical records and grievances. (D.I. 76). The
motion will be dismissed as moot. The Court docket indicates that Defendant served
the sealed documents upon Plaintiff via U.S. mail on May 22, 2020. (See D.I. 50).
Plaintiff shall advise the Court if he did not receive copies of the records as indicated by
Defendant’s certificate of service.
5.
Motion to Compel. Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to answer
interrogatories served on January 27, 2020. (See D.I. 36, 79). According to
Defendant’s August 31, 2020 discovery status letter to the Court, she has answered the
interrogatories. (See D.I. 84). The answers, however, do not appear on the court
docket. The motion will be granted to the extent that Defendant has not yet answered
the interrogatories. If Defendant has not answered the interrogatories, she will be
ordered to do so within thirty days from the date of this order. If Defendant has
answered the interrogatories but failed to file them, then she will be ordered to file the
answers within one week of the date of this order.
6.
Request for Counsel. Plaintiff has renewed his request for counsel.
(D.I. 85). The request will be denied for the reasons set forth in the November 20, 2019
Memorandum Order and the July 27, 2020 Memorandum and Order. (See D.I. 27, 80,
81). As noted, the case is not so factually or legally complex that requesting an attorney
is warranted. Plaintiff has added a new ground for counsel because he has no ability to
contact and question witnesses, but contradicts himself when he states that the
witnesses he has spoken to will only do so under Court order. (D.I. 85 at 2). Plaintiff
also refers to his “lack of medical and law lingo.” (Id.).
2
7.
To date, Plaintiff has ably represented himself. In addition, the docket
indicates his ability to navigate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in seeking and
obtaining discovery. The Court finds that counsel is not warranted at this time.
Accordingly, the Court will deny without prejudice to renew Plaintiff’s request for
counsel. (D.I. 85).
8.
Motion for Witnesses for Dispositive. Plaintiff seeks the full names and
addresses of individuals he names as witnesses. (D.I. 86). The motion will be denied
without prejudice to renew. It is not clear if this is a discovery request directed to
Defendant or if Plaintiff wishes to depose the named witnesses. In any event, the Court
does not have the information available to it.
9.
If Plaintiff seeks to depose the individuals, the Court will consider a
renewed request upon a showing of Plaintiff’s ability to pay for the costs of depositions
of non-parties, including issuance and service of subpoena and court reporter fees. The
court has no authority to finance or pay for a party’s discovery expenses. Badman v.
Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 605 (M.D. Pa.1991); Doe v. United States, 112 F.R.D. 183, 18485 (S.D.N.Y. 1986); Sturdevant v. Deer, 69 F.R.D. 17, 19 (E.D. Wis. 1975); see
Pedraza v. Jones, 71 F.3d 194, 196 n.4 (5th Cir. 1995) (inmate proceeding in forma
pauperis in a civil action must pay the required fees for attendance and mileage).
10.
Motions for Court Appointed Expert Witness Rule 706; Motion for My
Discovery – Expert Witness. Plaintiff renews his request for a court appointed expert
witness pursuant to Rule 706 to help him understand his medical records, to obtain an
expert opinion, and to assist in using medical records prior to Plaintiff’s incarceration
that back up his claims. (D.I. 89, 95; see D.I. 95-1). The motions will be denied for the
3
reasons set forth in the July 27, 2020 Memorandum and Order. (See D.I. 48, 80, 81).
Federal Rule of Evidence 706 provides that a District Court may “order the parties to
show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed.” Fed. R. Evid. 706(a).
Plaintiff does not present any evidence that an expert is necessary for the Court’s
benefit at this stage of the litigation. Therefore, I will exercise my discretion and deny
the motions to appoint an expert witness.
11.
Motion for Interrogatories. Plaintiff moves to serve interrogatories upon
non-parties. (D.I. 90). The motion will be denied. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
only permit the service of interrogatories upon parties to the litigation. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 33.
12.
Conclusion. As indicated, the Court will: (1) dismiss as moot the motion
for an extension of time; (2) grant the motion to amend to add a claim of mental
suffering and otherwise deny the motion; (3) dismiss as moot the motion to compel
sealed volumes; (4) grant the motion to compel interrogatory responses; (5) deny
without prejudice to renew the request for counsel; (6) deny without prejudice to renew
the motion for witness information; (7) deny the motions for a court-appointed expert;
and (8) deny the motion to serve interrogatories upon non-parties.
A separate order shall issue.
_/s/ Richard G. Andrews___________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
February 11, 2021
Wilmington, Delaware
4
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?