Udell v. Laughlin et al

Filing 30

ORDER finding as moot 28 Motion for Extension of Time to answer and produce documents; denying 28 Motion for subpoenas. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 09/09/2021. (jlh)

Download PDF
Case 3:21-cv-00016-DHB-BKE Document 30 Filed 09/09/21 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA DUBLIN DIVISION DEVONNE UDELL, Plaintiff, v. EDWARD WILLIAMS, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) _________ CV 321-016 ORDER _________ Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to answer and produce documents, (doc. no. 28-1), and Plaintiff’s motion for subpoenas, (doc. no. 28-2). For the reasons explained below, the motion for an extension of time to answer and produce documents is MOOT, and the Court DENIES the motion for subpoenas. As the Court explained in its May 25, 2021 Order, discovery materials are not routinely filed with the Court. (Doc. no. 15, p. 4.) Should Plaintiff wish for more time to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests, Plaintiff must first make such a request to Defendant, not the Court. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37 (containing the rules governing discovery and providing for the basic methods of discovery). Nonetheless, because Defendant consented to the deadline extension in its response brief, (doc. no. 29), Plaintiff’s motion is MOOT. (Doc. no. 28-1.) Plaintiff is reminded he must also adhere to Case 3:21-cv-00016-DHB-BKE Document 30 Filed 09/09/21 Page 2 of 2 the deadlines set in the Scheduling Notice issued by the Clerk of Court on July 13, 2021. (See doc. no. 25.) Additionally, Plaintiff asks the Court for a copy of his original complaint. (Doc. no. 28-2.) Plaintiff must maintain a set of records for the case. If papers are lost and new copies are required, these may be obtained from the Clerk of the Court at the standard cost of fifty cents per page. (Doc. no. 15.) See Wanninger v. Davenport, 697 F.2d 992, 994 (11th Cir. 1983) (“A prisoner’s right of access to the court does not include the right of free unlimited access to a photocopying machine . . . .”); see also Jackson v. Florida Dep’t of Fin. Servs., 479 F. App’x 289, 292-93 (11th Cir. 2012) (“This Court has never held that a prisoner’s right of access to the courts entitles a prisoner-plaintiff, even one proceeding in forma pauperis, to free copies of court documents, including his own pleadings.”) Regarding Plaintiff’s motion for subpoenas, pursuant to a standing Order in the Southern District of Georgia, “Subpoenas will not be issued to any party litigant who is incarcerated in a jail or prison.” In re Subpoenas, MC 496-006 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 16, 1996). Thus, Plaintiff is not entitled to have subpoenas issued to him, and he should request discovery from Defendants during the discovery period. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion. (Doc. no. 28-2.) SO ORDERED this 9th day of September, 2021, at Augusta, Georgia. 2

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?