Washam v. Burke County Jail
ORDER denying 22 Motion to Amend/Correct, in that Plaintiff's proposed amendment does not add any additional facts, legal claims, or relief not already requested; denying 23 Motion for Discovery, in that the Court will not conduct discovery on Plaintiff's behalf. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 11/9/2017. (jlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MICHEAL WAYNE WASHAM,
ALFONZO WILLIAMS, Sheriff; JOHN H. )
BUSH, Major; CHESTER V. HUFFMAN,
Major; WILBERT WILLIAMS, Lieutenant; )
STACY WILLIAMS, Nurse; KATIE
YOUNG, Nurse; and CASSANDRA
Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at Buke County Jail in Waynesboro, Georgia,
commenced the above-captioned case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is proceeding in
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and Motion for
Discovery. (Doc. nos. 22, 23.)
In his Motion to Amend, Plaintiff “ask[s] the Court to reallege and incorporate by
reference all allegations against the named defendants above from (Document 21) (pg. 2 &
pg. 3).” (Doc. no. 22, p. 1.) However, this Court previously warned Plaintiff he may not
incorporate by reference previously submitted claims or papers. (Doc. no. 16, pp. 1-2.)
Moreover, Plaintiff’s proposed amendment does not add any additional facts, legal claims, or
relief not already requested. Compare (doc. no. 22) with (doc. no. 17). Accordingly, the
Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. (Doc. no. 22.)
Turning to Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery, because no Defendant has filed an
answer, discovery has not commenced and Plaintiff’s motion is premature. Moreover, the
motion does not comply with the requirement in the Local Rules to attach a certificate of
service showing the motion was served on opposing counsel. See Layfield v. Bill Heard
Chevrolet Co., 607 F.2d 1097, 1099 (5th Cir. 1979)1 (holding failure to comply with Local
Rules may result in summary denial of motion). Finally, even if Plaintiff had served his
motion on opposing counsel, it is procedurally improper. As the Court explained in its Order
providing instructions on the progression of this case, Plaintiff must conduct discovery in
accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, Plaintiff’s discovery requests
must be directed to Defendants or, if appropriate, to third parties pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 45, but the Court will not conduct discovery on Plaintiff’s behalf.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery. (Doc. no. 23.)
SO ORDERED this 9th day of November, 2017, at Augusta, Georgia.
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the
Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions that were handed down
prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
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?