Whitehead v. Roger et al

Filing 9

ORDER: Plaintiff's "Motion [for] Notice's (sic) of Requirement, and Request for Document's (sic) Ordered" 8 is STRICKEN. This case shall remain CLOSED. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 11/1/2016. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
WILLIE FRANK WHITEHEAD, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:14-cv-1060-T-30EAJ

ALCOTT ROGER, JERRY HILL,
KAREN E. BURNETT, PATRICK
LONG, WADE A. WARREN, MIKE
SMITH, TODD EDWARDS, CORY
SUTTLE, JOHN CALLAHAN, GARY
JEFFERY, DAVID WATERMAN,
LAKELAND REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, LAKELAND POLICE
DEPARTMENT and POLK COUNTY
JAIL,
Defendants.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's "Motion [for] Notice’s (sic) of
Requirement, and Request for Document’s (sic) Ordered.” As indicated in his filings,
Plaintiff is either a pre-trial detainee on Florida criminal charges or a prisoner in the custody
of the state of Florida. Plaintiff first filed a lawsuit against several Florida public officials
and sought immediate release from detention and dismissal of all criminal charges against
him. (Dkt. 1). The Court dismissed that lawsuit without prejudice for failure to state a
claim. (Dkt. 3). Plaintiff thereafter sought the same relief in a filing styled as a “Motion for
Demand for Release.” The Court ordered that pleading stricken on the grounds that there
was no open case in which Plaintiff could seek relief by way of a motion. Interpreting the

motion as one seeking Habeas relief from a state prisoner, that same order instructed the
Clerk to send Plaintiff the form, “Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas
Corpus by a Person in State Custody,” in an effort to assist Plaintiff in properly petitioning
the Court for relief. (Dkt. 5).
Electing not to use the form, Plaintiff filed another motion seeking “discharge . . .
from crime, and state custody.” (Dkt. 6). This motion, however, suggested that Plaintiff
was a pre-trial detainee. The Court struck the motion on the same grounds as the previous
one, but this time instructed the Clerk to send Plaintiff the form more appropriate for pretrial detainees, “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” The Clerk
complied.
Electing again not to use the form, Plaintiff now moves the Court to supply Plaintiff
with a broad (and often vague) range of documents. The Court will remind Plaintiff again:
his complaint was dismissed, which means that he does not have a pending case through
which to move the Court for relief. The motion will be stricken on this ground alone.
Moreover, even if Plaintiff had properly filed a Habeas petition and there were now
an open case, Plaintiff’s motion would have been denied because Plaintiff failed to
articulate a particularized need for the documents he seeks. See United States v.
MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 325–27 (1976).
Plaintiff is again encouraged that, if it is Habeas review he seeks, he should use the
appropriate form supplied by the Court.
It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

2

1.

Plaintiff's "Motion [for] Notice’s (sic) of Requirement, and Request for

Document’s (sic) Ordered” (Dkt. #8) is STRICKEN.
2.

This case shall remain CLOSED.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 1st day of November, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record

3