Verrier v. Perrino et al

Filing 106

ORDER denying 94 Plaintiff's Request for Deposition of Third Party; denying 97 Plaintiff's Injunctive/Declaratory Relief; taking under advisement 99 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel per Rule 26(c)(2); denying 101 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. Defendants shall have up to and including February 15, 2017 to file a response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel per Rule 26(c)(2). Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 2/7/2017. (HJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JOSEPH M. VERRIER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:14-cv-744-FtM-29CM

PETER PERRINO and DIANE
LAPAUL,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff’s Request for
Deposition of Third Party (Doc. 94); Plaintiff’s Injunctive/Declaratory Relief (Doc. 97);
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel per Rule 26(c)(2) (Doc. 99); and Plaintiff’s Motion to
Appoint Counsel (Doc. 101).
Injunctive/Declaratory Relief.

Defendants responded in opposition to Plaintiff’s
Doc. 102.

Plaintiff’s request for deposition (Doc. 94) alleges that Plaintiff wishes to
depose attorney Roy Foxall to refute Defendant Diane LaPaul’s statement.
at 1.

Doc. 94

Plaintiff seeks the Court to explain proper procedures for taking a deposition

and requesting production of documents.

Id. at 2. Plaintiff should be mindful that

even if he is proceeding pro se, he “must follow the rules of procedure,” and “the
district court has no duty to act as a pro se party’s lawyer.” United States v. Hung

Thien Ly, 646 F.3d 1307, 1315 (11th Cir. 2011); Harvick v. Oak Hammock Pres. Cmty.
Ass’n Inc., No. 6:14-cv-937-Orl-40GJK, 2015 WL 667984, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 17,
2015).

In other words, “the trial judge is under no duty to provide personal

instruction on courtroom procedure or to perform any legal ‘chores’ for the [party]
that counsel would normally carry out.”

Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal., Fourth

Appellate Dist., 528 U.S. 152, 162 (2000). In addition, Plaintiff seeks a copy of the
Third Amended Complaint.

Id. at 2. On December 30, 2016, the Court already

directed the Clerk of Court to mail a copy to Plaintiff.

Doc. 93 at 4.

the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Request for Deposition of Third Party.

Accordingly,
Doc. 94.

Plaintiff’s Injunctive/Declaratory Relief (Doc. 97) asks that the Court cease
Defendants’ and the Florida Department of Corrections’ order to disable all email
accounts Plaintiff has used and also compel Defendants to permit others to email on
behalf of Plaintiff.
January 23, 2017.

Doc. 97 at 6.
Doc. 100.

Plaintiff filed an Addendum to this motion on

Defendants argue that this motion seeks the Court’s

involvement in the conduct and supervision of Plaintiff’s probation.

Doc. 102 at 3.

As Senior United States District Judge John E. Steele held in his previous Order,
Plaintiff’s motion does not present “any basis to justify this Court interfering with
the domestic and/or criminal state court proceedings.”

Doc. 77 at 3. Furthermore,

the Court already has addressed this issue in denying Plaintiff’s request to lift
internet use restrictions and GPS monitoring imposed on Plaintiff.

Doc. 75 at 3.

As

a result, Plaintiff’s Injunctive/Declaratory Relief (Doc. 97) is denied.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel per Rule 26(c)(2) seeks to compel Defendants to
produce any publicly available documents or materials provided to probationers and
the Florida Department of Corrections’ internal documents on how agents enforce
certain statutes.

Doc. 99 at 2. Defendants have not responded to this motion, and

-2-

their time to do so has expired.

Accordingly, the Court will direct Defendants to

respond to this motion and take this motion under advisement pending Defendants’
response.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 100) is Plaintiff’s third renewed
motion to appoint counsel.

Docs. 5, 24, 27.

motions for appointment of counsel.

The Court has denied Plaintiff’s prior

Doc. 29.

Plaintiff’s present motion does not

present any new legal ground as to why the Court should reverse its prior rulings and
grant Plaintiff’s motion.

Doc. 101.

will deny Plaintiff’s present motion.

In light of the Court’s prior rulings, the Court
Doc. 29.

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Request for Deposition of Third Party (Doc. 94) is DENIED.

2.

Plaintiff’s Injunctive/Declaratory Relief (Doc. 97) is DENIED.

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel per Rule 26(c)(2) (Doc. 99) is TAKEN

UNDER ADVISEMENT.

Defendants shall have up to and including February 15,

2017 to file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel per Rule 26(c)(2).
4.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 101) is DENIED as moot.

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 7th day of February,
2017.

-3-

Copies:
Counsel of record
Joseph M. Verrier pro se

-4-