Clark v. Sheffield et al
ORDER denying 7 Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 8/10/17. (cmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ARTHUR LAWTON CLARK,
LYNN SHEFFIELD, Sheriff; LT. TOMMY
BARRENTINE; and DR. PETER WROBELS, )
Plaintiff commenced the above-captioned case pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(Doc. no. 1.) On August 3, 2017, the Clerk of Court docketed a letter from Plaintiff
requesting the issuance of a subpoena for the production of his Georgia Department of
Corrections medical records. (Doc. no. 7.) The letter is addressed to the Clerk of Court, is
not captioned as a motion, and does not contain a certificate of service, as is required by the
Local Rules, showing that it has been served on Defendants or their counsel. Plaintiff
previously received instructions about the requirements for making filings with the Court and
was warned that filings which do not comply with the requirements would be returned to
him. (See doc. no. 2, p. 2.)
Discovery commences with the last answer of a defendant named in a complaint.
Loc. R. 26.1(d)(i). Here, Defendant Wrobels has not filed an answer. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
request for a subpoena is premature. Moreover, “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 an extension in the
future regarding a specific deadline, he must file a properly captioned motion and serve that
motion on Defendant or its counsel. He may not simply write letters to the Clerk, and
accordingly, the Court DENIES his “motion.” (Doc. no. 7.)
SO ORDERED this 10th day of August, 2017, at Augusta, Georgia.
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?