Vaughan v. Erwin et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Magistrate Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl on 10/8/2021. Plaintiff's motion for issuance of subpoenas is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. The clerk is directed to send Vaughan two blank subpoenas which he may complete and return to the Court for review. Plaintiff's motion seeking to strike Defendant's response at DN 175 is DENIED. cc: Counsel; Plaintiff, pro se(JWM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
BOWLING GREEN DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-00017-GNS-HBB
JAMES ERWIN et al
Before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Vaughan’s motion styled “Combined Motions for
Permission to Issue Subpoenas and Objection” (DN 178). Defendants have not filed a Response.
In his motion, Vaughan states that he received pleadings from counsel for Defendant James
Erwin responding to Vaughan’s motions at DN 166, 167, 168 and 169, which contained a
certification of service mailing of April 12, 2021 (Id. at p. 1). Vaughan notes that the postage
machine stamp was also dated April 12, 2021 (Id.). However, according to a “date received” stamp
affixed to the envelope; it was not received at the Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR) until May
17, 2021 (Id.). Given the period of time between the represented mailing and receipt of the
documents, Vaughan questions whether the certification of service is truthful as to the mailing
date, or whether KSR is withholding his mail (Id. at p. 1-2). If the former, he contends the action
would constitute a violation under FED. R. CIV. P. 11 (Id. at p. 1). Consequently, he seeks issuance
of two subpoenas (Id. at p. 2). One to the United States Postal Service to determine the date upon
which the pleadings were placed in the mail, and one to the Kentucky Department of Corrections
to determine the actual date of receipt (Id.). This, he contends, will reveal the facts of mailing and
receipt (Id.). He also asks that the Court strike the aforementioned responses to his motions (Id.).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of subpoenas is
The clerk is directed to send Vaughan two blank subpoenas which he may complete and
return to the Court for review. If the undersigned concludes that Vaughan has framed his subpoena
requests in an acceptable matter, the Clerk will be directed to execute the subpoenas and return
them to Vaughan for service.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of Plaintiff’s motion seeking to strike
Defendant’s response at DN 175 is DENIED. Vaughan has not provided a sufficient basis upon
which to find that the responses should be stricken.
October 8, 2021
Counsel of Record
Michael Vaughan, pro se
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?