Harris v. Savannah Chatham Metropolitan Police Department

Filing 30

ORDER denying re 29 Motion/Notice. Harris is, therefore, DIRECTED to amend his complaint to identify the "CNT Agents" he contends subjected him to excessive force. He must file that amendment, by signing it and placing it within his prison's mail system, within 30 days from the date of this Order. Failure to comply may result in dismissal. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 4/25/18. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
ERIC LATROY HARRIS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
SCMPD (CNT AGENTS),
Defendants.

CV417-154

ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Eric Harris has filed a document with the Clerk
captioned

“Notice,”

which

seeks

additional

documents

from

“Defendant.” Doc. 29. Harris’ filing follows a response to the Court’s
previous Order seeking clarification on the identities of the “agents” who
allegedly used excessive force in effecting Harris’ arrest. Doc. 27 & 28.
That response indicates that Harris was provided with copies of various
police documents on April 2, 2018. Doc. 28 at 1. Provision of those
documents requires that Harris identify the officers he contends
subjected him to excessive force so that they can be served, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).

This Court’s previous Order explained that, although failure to
identify defendants by name in the Complaint is not fatal, failure to do so
after adequate opportunity may require dismissal. Doc. 27 at 3 (quoting
McKnight v. McDuffie, 2007 WL 1087280, at * 4 (S.D. Ga. April 9, 2007)
(“[W]here a plaintiff fails to discover the identity of John Doe defendants
despite adequate time to do so, claims against such defendants should be
dismissed.”)). Counsel for the City of Savannah and Chatham County, in
response to the Court’s request, have provided the police reports relevant
to Harris’ arrest. Doc. 28-1. Harris is, therefore, DIRECTED to amend
his Complaint to identify the “CNT Agents” he contends subjected him
to excessive force.1 See doc. 1 at 3. He must file that amendment, by
signing it and placing it within his prison’s mail system, within

1

The documents provided indicate that there were five “CNT Agents” present when
Harris was arrested. See doc. 28-1 at 5 (listing officers Arango, Nevin, Mercer,
McElaney, and Gundich as “on scene”). Harris’ allegations do not indicate how many
agents were involved in the alleged excessive force. See doc. 8 at 5 (alleging only that
“the Agents proceeded to pick him up” by his cuffed arms and “drag [him] through
the house”). The only physical contact between Harris and officers reflected in the
reports is that “Lt. Gunditch” witnessed “Mr. Harris [being] assisted to his feet by
two agents,” but he does not identify those agents or provide any indication that the
officers who “assisted” Harris were the same officers who allegedly subjected him to
excessive force. Doc. 28-1 at 5. Other than that reference, the Court is unable to
glean anything further concerning the possible identities of the officers Harris
contends were involved in the excessive force.
2

30 days from the date of this Order.

Failure to comply may

result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41.
To the extent that Harris’ “Notice” seeks a discovery Order, it is
DENIED. Doc. 29. In the first place, his request for “personnel files”
for every officer “involved” in his arrest is over broad. Id. at 1. Since he
only alleges that he was subjected to excessive force, it is not clear how
the personnel files of officers other than those for the particular officers
who allegedly exerted that force is even conceivably relevant. He also
repeats his request for “audio/video footage of the arrest.” Id. Counsel
for the City and County have provided the Court with a copy of their
response to his original request, which undertakes to provide those
recordings in a supplement. Doc. 28-1 at 1. Since his most recent filing
does nothing to contradict the sincerity of that undertaking, his repeated
request is moot.
Harris is advised that, although the Court has approved his law
suit for service, that approval does not give him unlimited license to
litigate. First, he must comply with this Order, identify the relevant
defendants so that they may be served with process, and they must
answer. Those defendants, to say nothing of the City and County, may

3

assert immunity defenses that affect the scope of permissible discovery.
See, e.g., Howe v. City of Enterprise, 861 F.3d 1300, 1302 (11th Cir. 2017)
(requiring immunity defenses be resolved before parties were required to
litigate claim’s merits). Once the question of the defendants’ identities
has been resolved, they have been properly served, and any asserted
immunity defenses have been resolved, the Court will then enter a
further Order, if necessary, concerning the schedule for discovery.
SO ORDERED, this 25th day of April, 2018.

4