Galloway v. CCA McRae Correctional Facility et al

Filing 40

ORDER denying without prejudice 29 Motion; denying motions 30 31 32 33 34 and 35 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 10/9/15. (cmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION
RASHFORD EMANUEL GALLOWAY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CCA MCRAE CORRECTIONAL
)
FACILITY; STACEY N. STONE,
)
CCA McRae Warden; LYNETTE
)
HARRIS, CCA McRae Unit Manager;
)
CHARLES STAPLES, CCA McRae RN;
)
and STACY GILES, CCA McRae Medical )
Health Services Administrator,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________

CV 314-067

ORDER
_________
Plaintiff, currently detained at McRae Correctional Facility in McRae, Georgia,
commenced the above-captioned case pro se and has paid the $400.00 filing fee. Currently
before the Court are various motions by Plaintiff pertaining to the subpoena of witnesses for trial
(doc. no. 29), requesting discovery from Defendants (doc nos. 31-35), and requesting to
introduce exhibits attached to his complaint as evidence (doc. no. 30).
I. Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting the Court to Issue Subpoenas to Witnesses
First, Plaintiff’s motion requesting the Court to subpoena witnesses for trial is premature and
improper at this time. Discovery in this case has just concluded but both parties have until
October 22, 2015 to file motions, including motions for summary judgment. (Doc. no. 28.)
Defense counsel intended to file a motion for summary judgment, and no trial is imminent in this

case. (See doc. no. 36, p. 2.) Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff’s motion to summon witnesses. (Doc. no. 29)
II. Plaintiff’s Discovery Motions
Plaintiff’s first discovery motion requests the Court to reconsider the return of his prior
interrogatories filed with the Court. (See doc. no. 31, pp. 1, 9.) The Court’s prior Order clearly
informed Plaintiff that discovery materials were not to be filed with the Clerk of Court and were
to be served directly upon Defendants. (Doc. no. 6, pp. 3-4.) Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is
nothing more than a request for the Court to allow him to serve discovery requests upon
Defendant by filing them with the Court.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s

“resubmitting motion for disclosures and discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 33(b)(2) and (3)” as
improper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff’s other “motions to compel” are interrogatories filed with the Court requesting the
four individual Defendants in this case to answer various questions under oath. (Doc. nos. 3235.)

In their response, Defendants attach an affidavit stating t they never received any

interrogatories from Plaintiff. (Doc. no. 37, p. 4.) , Plaintiff’s “motions to compel” are improper
discovery requests filed with this Court and never sent to Defendants.
Even considering the motions as motions to compel discovery, the motions are improper.
The Local Rule that governs the filing of a motion to compel provides:
LR 26.5 Discovery Motions and Objections. Discovery motions in
accordance with Rules 26, 33, 34, 36, and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and objections relating to discovery shall:
(a) quote verbatim each interrogatory, request for admission, or request
for production to which a motion or objection is taken;
2

(b) include the specific ground for the motion or objection; and
(c) include the reasons assigned as supporting the motion, which shall
be written in immediate succession to one another. Such objections and
grounds shall be addressed to the specific interrogatory, request for admission,
or request for production and may not be made generally.
Counsel are reminded that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and 37(a)(2) require a
party seeking a protective order or moving to compel discovery to certify that
a good faith effort has been made to resolve the dispute before coming to
court.
Loc. R. 26.5.
Here, Plaintiff completely fails to comply with the Local Rule in that he did not attach
a certification that he has made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute before seeking Court
intervention. Plaintiff’s motions in no way comply with the Local Rules, and therefore the
Court DENIES Plaintiff’s “motions to compel.” (Doc. nos. 32-35.) See Holloman v. MailWell Corp., 443 F.3d 832, 844 (11th Cir. 2006) (affirming denial of discovery motion based
on “a failure to work with the defendants in good faith” during discovery process); Haynes v.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 466 F. App’x 763, 765-66 (11th Cir. 2012) (affirming denial of
motion to compel where movant failed to consult in good faith with opponent before filing
motion).
III. Plaintiff’s Motion to Present Exhibits
Plaintiff has also filed a motion to present exhibits as evidence. (Doc. no. 30.) Plaintiff
apparently wishes to introduce the exhibits attached to his complaint as evidence against the
Defendants at trial. (See id.) As noted above, discovery in this case has just concluded, and
the parties have until October 22, 2015 to file all civil motions, excluding motions in limine.
3

(Doc. no. 28.) A trial in this case is in no way imminent. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is
procedurally improper at this time, and the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to present
exhibits. (Doc. no. 30.) Should Plaintiff file a motion for summary judgment or respond to a
motion for summary judgment by Defendants, he may file any evidence along with such
motion to prove a material fact, including the complaint exhibits.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s
motion to subpoena witnesses for trial (doc. no. 29), DENIES Plaintiff’s motion
“resubmitting motion for disclosures and discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 33(b)(2) and (3)”
(doc no. 31), DENIES Plaintiff’s motions to compel answers to interrogatories from
Defendants Stone, Giles, Staples, and Harris (doc. nos. 32-35), and DENIES Plaintiff’s
motion to present exhibits as evidence (doc. no. 30).
SO ORDERED this 9th day of October, 2015, at Augusta, Georgia.

4