Sullivan v. Core Civic et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 27 Motion for the Court subpoena these documents for the purpose of being viewed by the jury at trial; denying Plaintiff's premature request to subpoena three inmates for trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 12/14/2017. (jlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION
MARIO ROMOAN SULLIVAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
GLYNN POWELL, Unit Manager.
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV 317-017

_________
ORDER
_________
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court provided him with some basic
instructions regarding the development and progression of this case. (Doc. no. 13.) In those
instructions, the Court explained to Plaintiff the process for conducting discovery and cited
the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 5-6.) The matter is now before the
Court because Plaintiff has filed a letter requesting the Court order Defendant to comply with the
discovery process. (Doc. no. 27.)
Plaintiff’s motion states he served requests for production of documents which
Defendant summarily denied. (Id.) In particular, Plaintiff complains Defendant refused to
produce any documents in response to his request #5, which allegedly requests “Any notes,
documents, letters, memoranda, file records, logs, grievances, or wire communications
concerning complaints made against Defendant ‘Glynn Powell.’” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff asks

the Court to “subpoena these documents for the purpose of being view [sic] by the jury at
trial.” (Id. at 2.)
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;
(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.
Plaintiff did not attach a copy of any discovery requests, and he did not attach a
certification that he has made a good faith effort to resolve any dispute before seeking Court
intervention. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s discovery request, (doc. no. 27).
See Holloman v. Mail-Well 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); see also Layfield v. Bill Heard Chevrolet Co., 607

2

F.2d 1097, 1099 (5th Cir. 1979)1 (holding that failure to comply with the Local Rules may
result in summary denial of a motion).
Plaintiff also seeks to subpoena three fellow inmates for trial. (Doc. no. 27, p. 2-3.)
However, the case is not yet ready for trial, as discovery does not close until February 7,
2018, and the last day to file summary judgment motions is March 9, 2018. (See doc. no.
19.) Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request as premature. Should the case
proceed to trial, Plaintiff may request these three witnesses’ presence at that time.
Finally, “if a litigant seeks judicial action of any sort . . . it must be contained within a
motion arising from a properly filed lawsuit.” In re Unsolicited Letters to Federal Judges, 120 F.
Supp. 2d 1073, 1074 (S.D. Ga. 2000). It may not be requested in a personal letter. Id. Thus,
should Plaintiff seek any future relief from this Court, he must file a properly captioned motion
and serve that motion on defendants or their counsel. He may not simply write letters to the
Court.
SO ORDERED this 14th day of December, 2017, at Augusta, Georgia.

1

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.
3