Sutherland v. Chisolm et al
Filing
5
ORDER denying 3 Motion for service of process. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 10/1/12. (bcw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
DAVID SUTHERLAND,
Plaintiff,
V.
Case No. CV412-239
CHATHAM COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, LARRY CHISOLM
INDIVIDUALLY AND
PROFESSIONALLY, et al.,
Defendant.
ORDER
The Court DENIES David Sutherland's motion for service of
process. Doc. 3. He paid 'the Court's $350 filing fee to advance this civil
rights case against seemingly everyone involved in his prosecution (see
attached state court docket sheets). Now he asks the Clerk of this Court
(hence, this Court) to serve those defendants. He is on his own, however,
as he is not indigent and thus he must bear the expense of advancing his
own case.' He therefore must fully comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 or risk
1
While certain leeway is permitted pro se plaintiffs, the Court cannot advise or assist
them. Moreover, pro se plaintiffs are subject to the same rules governing federal
proceedings that apply to all represented litigants. E.g., Nelson v. Barden, 145 F.
RM
Rule 4(m) dismissal. And, he must comply with the following additional
instructions.
I. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
Plaintiff shall serve upon each defendant or, if appearance has been
entered by counsel, upon each defendant's attorney, a copy of every
further pleading or other document submitted for consideration by the
Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed with the
Clerk of Court a certificate stating the date a true and correct copy of any
document was mailed to defendant or their counsel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.
"Every pleading must have a caption with the court's name, a title, [and]
a file number." Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Any paper received by a district
judge or magistrate judge which has not been filed with the Clerk and
which fails to include a caption or a certificate of service will be
disregarded by the Court and returned to the sender.
App'x 303, 311 n. 10 (11th Cir. 2005) ("[A] defendant's pro se status in civil litigation
generally will not excuse mistakes he makes regarding procedural rules."); Wayne v.
Jarvis, 197 F.3d 1098, 1104 (11th Cir. 1999) (liberal construction of the pleading
requirements for pro se litigants does not equate with liberal deadlines), overruled on
other grounds by Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2003); Moon v. Newsome,
863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) ("[O]nce a pro se IFP litigant is in court, he is
subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.").
Plaintiff is charged with the responsibility of immediately
informing this Court of any change of his address during the pendency of
this action. Local Rule 11.1. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of
this case. Local Rule 41.1.
Plaintiff is responsible for pursuing this case. For example, if
plaintiff wishes to obtain facts and information about the case from
defendants, he must initiate discovery. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 26,
et seq. Plaintiff does not need the permission of the Court to begin
discovery. However, under Rule 26(f), plaintiff is under a duty to confer
with opposing counsel to develop a plan of discovery and must do so
before seeking discovery from any source. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d), (1).
If plaintiff does not press the case forward, the Court may dismiss it for
want of prosecution. Fed.R. Civ. P. 41; Local Rule 41.1.
Interrogatories and requests for the production of documents
provide a practical method of discovery for pro se litigants. Fed. R. Civ. P.
33, 34. Interrogatories and requests for production may be served only
on a party to the litigation, and, for the purposes of the instant case, this
means that interrogatories should not be directed to persons or
organizations who are not named as defendants. Interrogatories and
requests for production shall not be filed with the court. Interrogatories
are not to contain more than twenty-five questions. Fed. R. Civ. P.
33(a)(1). If plaintiff wishes to propound more than twenty-five
interrogatories to a party, plaintiff must have permission of the Court.
Id. In a request for production, plaintiff may request the opposing party
to produce any designated documents for the purpose of inspection and
copying. The request must set forth the items to be inspected either by
individual item or by category, and describe each item and category with
reasonable particularity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1). The request should
specify a reasonable time and place (such as defendant's place of
business) for making the inspection. Id.
Should it become necessary to file a motion to compel discovery
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, plaintiff should first contact the attorney for
defendant to try to work out the problem; if the problem cannot be
resolved, plaintiff must file a statement certifying that opposing counsel
has been contacted in a good faith effort to resolve any dispute about
discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P 26(c); 37(a)(1). Plaintiff has the responsibility
for maintaining his or her own records of the case. If plaintiff loses
r
papers and needs new copies, plaintiff may obtain them online or from
the Clerk of Court at the standard cost of fifty cents ($.50) per page.
It is the plaintiffs duty to cooperate fully in any discovery which
may be initiated by the defendant. Evasive or incomplete responses to
discovery will not be tolerated and may subject plaintiff to severe
sanctions, including dismissal of this case. Should any defendant
endeavor to take plaintiffs deposition, plaintiff shall permit his
deposition to be taken and shall answer, under oath or solemn
affirmation, any question which seeks information relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action.
II. ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS
Under this Court's Local Rules, a party opposing a motion to
dismiss shall file and serve his response to the motion within fourteen
days of its service. "Failure to respond shall indicate that there is no
opposition to a motion." Local Rule 7.5. Therefore, if plaintiff fails to
respond to a motion to dismiss, the Court will assume that plaintiff does
not oppose defendant's motion.
A response to a motion for summary judgment must be filed within
twenty-one days after service of the motion. Local Rules 7.5, 56.1. The
5
failure to respond to such a motion shall indicate that there is no
opposition to the motion Furthermore, each material fact set forth in
the defendant's statement of material facts will, if evidentially supported,
be deemed admitted unless specifically controverted by an opposing
statement. Should a defendant file a motion for summary judgment,
plaintiff is advised that he will have the burden of establishing the
existence of a genuine issue as to any material fact in this case. That
burden cannot be met by reliance upon the conclusory allegations
contained within the complaint.
Should a defendant's motion for summary judgment be supported
by affidavit(s), plaintiff must file counter-affidavits if he desires to
contest that defendant's statement of the facts, if the facts are
evidentially supported. Should plaintiff fail to file opposing affidavits
setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial,
the consequences are these: any evidentially supported factual assertions
made in defendant's affidavits may be accepted as true and summary
judgment may be entered against him pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
SO ORDERED this
41ay
4
of October, 2012.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
,9/28/1 2
Case Details
CLLLtd OJ'C4.
trnJJudicia1 Circuit of Coi1a
search...
Case Details
couU
• Case Events
State
VS.
• Charges
SUTHERLAND, DAVID RICHARD
• Parties
COURT FEES
• Proceedings
Case Information
Defendant Information
Court:
Superior
Name:
SUTHERLAND, DAVID RICHARD
Case Number
CR072258
DIN:
X0021263
Case Type:
THEFT-F
Gender MALE
Judge:
HONORABLE MICHAEL KARPF
Race:
WHITE
Assistant District Attorney: ANNA GUARDINO
Height:
69
Date Filed:
8/29/2007
Weight: 140
Status:
CLOSED - GUILTY PLEA(0)
Eyes:
GREEN
Disposition Date:
6113/2008
Hair
Disposition:
GUILTY PLEA(0)
GREY/PARTIALLY
GREY
Ctffl CofltJ Shtiff X982263
70
-
so—
Click for lame Picture
Attorney Information
N/A
Bondsman Information
N/A
Case Events
Date
Time
Code
Judge
Action
8/31/2009
09:OOAM
MOTION HEARING (MTH)
MICHAEL KARPF
DISMISSED
12/22/2008
10:00AM
MOTION HEARING (MTH)
MICHAEL KARPF
DISMISSED
6/13/2008
1:30PM
PLEA HEARING
MICHAEL KARPF
CANCELLED EVENT - CL
6/2/2008
10:00AM
JURY TRIAL
MICHAEL KARPF
CANCELLED EVENT - CL
5/20/2008
09:30AM
TRIAL DOCKET CALL
MICHAEL KARPF
CANCELLED EVENT - CL
2/26/2008
09:30AM
TRIAL DOCKET CALL
MICHAEL KARPF
CANCELLED EVENT - CL
12/3/2007
09:00AM
PRETRIAL HEARING
MICHAEL KARPF
CANCELLED EVENT - CL
10/22/2007
1:30PM
ARRAIGNMENT/TRACKING DOCKET
MICHAEL KARPF
CANCELLED EVENT -_CL
[Return to Topi
w.chathamcourtsorg/CaseDetails.aspx'?caseno=CRO72258
1/2
4 9/28/1 2
Case Details
[Return to Topi
Proceedings 14/17/2012
RETURN OF SERVICE
10/8/2009
8/31/2009
TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED
09:OOAM MOTION HEARING (MTH)
6/17/2009
12/22/2008
FROM DAVID SUTHERLAND!
RECEIVED
ANNOUNCEMENT 08-31-2009.
DISMISSED
MICHAEL
KARPF
DISMISSED
MICHAEL
KARPF
NOLLE PROSEQUI
10:00AM MOTION HEARING (MTH)
9/3,12008
TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED
RECEIVED
OE PLEA 13 JUN 08
PRO SE LETTER RECEIVED
7/17/2008
FILED BY DER CASE INQUIRY RPT,
PRO SE LETTER RECEIVED
6/24/2008
FILED BY DER REQUEST COPY OF
SENTENCE!
CASE DISPOSED
GUILTY PLEA OPEN MICHAEL
KARPF
6/13/2008
1:30PM PLEA HEARING
CANCELLED EVENT MICHAEL
- CL
KARPE
6/2/2008
10:00AM JURY TRIAL
CANCELLED EVENT MICHAEL
- CL
KARPF
5/20/2008
09:30AM TRIAL DOCKET CALL
CANCELLED EVENT MICHAEL
-CL
KARPF
2/26/2008
09:30AM TRIAL DOCKET CALL
CANCELLED EVENT MICHAEL
12,13,12007
09:OOAM PRETRIAL HEAPING
CANCELLED EVENT MICHAEL
-CL
KARPF
10/22,12007
CASE DISPOSED GO
1:30PM ARRAIGN MENT/TRACKING CANCELLED EVENT MICHAEL
DOCKET
- CL
KARPF
- CL
9/10,12007 3:42:33
SCREENING
KARPF
INITIAL CASE SCREENING!
SCANNING
[Return to Top[
w.chathamcourts.org/CaseDetails.aspx?caseno = CR072258
2/2
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?