Martin et al v. Noble County Sheriff's Dept et al
Filing
56
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS the Motion to Quash 50 , QUASHES Anthony Martin's October 9, 2018 Interrogatories 35 and Requests for Production to ISP 41 , and ORDERS that ISP is not obligated to respond to those discovery requests. T he Court DENIES "Plaintiff's Motion to Object/Oppose to the Defendants Motion to Quash 51 . The Court DENIES without prejudice the relief contained within the document titled "Fed. Rules of Civil Procd. Rule 18(a) & Rule 20(a)(1)(A)" 52 . The Court DENIES as moot "Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery & Things/Indiana State Police Department" 55 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 12/18/2018. (Copy mailed as directed in Order) (lhc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
DENICE MARTIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NOBLE COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO.: 1:18-CV-121-TLS-PRC
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Quash [DE 50], filed by Defendant Indiana
State Police Department (“ISP”) on November 8, 2018. This matter is also before the Court on
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Object/Oppose to the Defendants Motion to Quash” [DE 51] and a document
titled “Fed. Rules of Civil Procd. Rule 18(a) & Rule 20(a)(1)(A)” [DE 52], both filed by Denice
Martin, Quinton Martin, and Anthony Martin on November 21, 2018. On November 28, 2018,
Defendant ISP filed a “Reply in Support of Motion to Quash and Response in Opposition to Other
Motions” [DE 53]. Plaintiffs have not filed a reply in support of their “Plaintiff’s Motion to
Object/Oppose to the Defendants Motion to Quash” or in support of their document titled “Fed.
Rules of Civil Procd. Rule 18(a) & Rule 20(a)(1)(A),” and the time to do so has passed. Finally, the
Court also considers “Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery & Things/Indiana State Police
Department” [DE 55], filed by Anthony Martin on December 4, 2018.
On October 9, 2018, Anthony Martin filed with the Court a set of interrogatories directed
at ISP, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. See (ECF 35). The first page of the interrogatories
shows that the interrogatories were scanned from the Pendleton Correctional Facility and signed by
Anthony Martin only.
Also on October 9, 2018, Anthony Martin filed with the Court a set of requests for
production directed to ISP, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. See (ECF 41). This document
is signed by Anthony Martin only.
1.
Motion to Quash (ECF 50) and “Motion to Object/Oppose to the Defendants Motion to
Quash” (ECF 51)
In the Motion to Quash, ISP asks the Court to quash the October 9, 2018 discovery requests
propounded on ISP by Anthony Martin on the basis that Anthony Martin is not a party to this
litigation because he did not sign the Complaint and because he is not represented by counsel. The
November 18, 2018 response to the Motion to Quash is signed by Anthony Martin as well as
Plaintiffs Denice Martin and Quinton Martin. On November 28, 2018, ISP filed a reply.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) requires that “[e]very pleading . . . must be signed by
. . . a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). In addition, 28 U.S.C. §
1654 provides: “In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases
personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and
conduct causes therein.” Importantly, “one pro se litigant cannot represent another.” Nocula v. UGS
Corp., 520 F.3d 719, 725 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1654); see also Cooper v. Sankey, No.
08-CV-399, 2008 WL 2954288, at *1 (W.D. Wis. July 30, 2008) (noting that an individual was “not
a proper party to the case because she [had] not signed the complaint” and that the pro se plaintiff
who did sign the complaint did “not have the authority to file a complaint on someone else’s behalf,
even his wife’s”). As noted by ISP, although Anthony Martin’s name is listed in the caption of the
Complaint, the Complaint is signed only by Denice Martin and Quinton Martin, with an address of
214 East Masterson Ave., Fort Wayne, Indiana. See (ECF 1). There is no signature of Anthony
Martin on the Complaint. See id. Thus, Anthony Martin is not a proper party.
2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that “the scope of discovery is as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery . . . that is relevant to any party’s claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)
(emphasis added). Rule 33 provides that a “party may serve on any other party no more than 25
written interrogatories.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1) (emphasis added). And, Rule 34 provides that a
“party may serve on any other party a request [for production] within the scope of Rule 26(b).” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 34(a) (emphasis added). The October 9, 2018 interrogatories and requests for production
at issue were signed only by Anthony Martin and were sent from Pendleton Correctional Facility.
Neither Plaintiff Denice Martin nor Plaintiff Quinton Martin signed either the interrogatories or the
requests for production. Thus, ISP contends that, because Anthony Martin is not a proper party, he
cannot issue discovery and his discovery requests should be quashed.
The Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Object/Oppose to the Defendants Motion to Quash” asserts that
“plaintiffs have incorporated all parties/plaintiffs on May 7, 2018, [when] Denice Martin filed
complaint.” (ECF 51, p. 2). No legal basis is offered for this statement, and the fact remains that
Anthony Martin did not sign the May 7, 2018 Complaint. Notably, Plaintiffs have not filed a Motion
for Leave to Amend Complaint with a proposed Amended Complaint containing the signature of all
plaintiffs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; N.D. Ind. L.R. 15.1. Anthony Martin cites Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 26(e), regarding a party’s duty to supplement discovery responses, and 26(g)(2),
regarding the failure to sign a discovery request, but neither rule allows for discovery by a non-party.
Anthony Martin’s October 9, 2018 discovery requests are brought either as a non-party or as a nonattorney attempting to represent Plaintiffs Denice Martin and Quinton Martin, neither of which is
permissible. Accordingly, the Court grants ISP’s motion and quashes Anthony Martin’s October 9,
2018 discovery requests to ISP.
3
2.
“Fed. Rules of Civil Procd. Rule 18(a) & Rule 20(a)(1)(A)” (ECF 52)
In their November 21, 2018 filing titled “Fed. Rules of Civil Procd. Rule 18(a) & Rule
20(a)(1)(A),” see (ECF 52), Denice Martin, Anthony C. Martin, and Quinton Martin seek leave of
court to join as party plaintiffs Anthony C. Martin, Amanda Delagrange, and Tony Martin and ask
the Court to deny the Motion to Quash. In support, they cite Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18(a)
and 20(a)(1)(A). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) provides that “[a] party asserting a claim,
counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as
many claims as it has against an opposing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 20(a)(1)(A) provides that “[p]ersons may join in one action as plaintiffs if . . . they assert
any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1)(A).
In support of the relief requested, Denice Martin submitted a sworn declaration stating, in
relevant part, that Plaintiffs are in the process of amending their complaint before the court.
However, as noted above, Plaintiffs have not filed a Motion to Amend Complaint with the signed
proposed Amended Complaint attached as an exhibit. Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 151(a) requires that “Motions to amend a pleading must include the original signed proposed
amendment as an attachment.” N.D. Ind. L.R. 15-1(a) (emphasis added). Local Rule 15-1(c)
provides that the failure to comply with Local Rule 15-1(a) is not grounds to deny the motion. N.D.
Ind. L.R. 15-1(c). However, as it appears that Plaintiffs would seek to amend the Complaint
primarily to include the signature of all Plaintiffs, the instant motion for joinder is premature.
Moreover, Plaintiffs’ representation that they are working on a motion to amend their Complaint
does not change the fact that Anthony Martin served discovery as a non-party. Therefore, the Court
4
denies, as premature, the relief requested in the “Fed. Rules of Civil Procd. Rule 18(a) & Rule
20(a)(1)(A).”
3.
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery & Things/Indiana State Police Department” (ECF
55)
The motion titled “Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery & Things/Indiana State Police
Department” is signed only by Anthony Martin. The motion asks the Court to require ISP to respond
to Anthony Martin’s October 9, 2018 interrogatories and requests for documents discussed above.
Because the Court has quashed Anthony Martin’s discovery requests, there are no discovery
responses to compel. Therefore, the Court denies as moot “Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery
& Things/Indiana State Police Department.”
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Quash [DE 50], QUASHES
Anthony Martin’s October 9, 2018 Interrogatories [DE 35] and Requests for Production to ISP [DE
41], and ORDERS that ISP is not obligated to respond to those discovery requests.
The Court DENIES “Plaintiff’s Motion to Object/Oppose to the Defendants Motion to
Quash” [DE 51].
The Court DENIES without prejudice the relief contained within the document titled “Fed.
Rules of Civil Procd. Rule 18(a) & Rule 20(a)(1)(A)” [DE 52].
The Court DENIES as moot “Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery & Things/Indiana
State Police Department” [DE 55].
SO ORDERED this 18th day of December, 2018.
s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:
Pro se Parties
5
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?