Violett v. Dowden et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 12/13/17; denying 8 Motion to Submit Exhibits. cc: Counsel, Plaintiff(pro se) (DJT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
DONALD R. VIOLETT
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17CV-P531-TBR

CASEY DOWDEN et al.

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Submit Exhibits” (DN 8).
In his motion, Plaintiff requests the Court to “issue an order for the Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division-Washington [to] investigate the American with Disabilities Act (ADA)
violations at the Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR) as to the mistreatment . . . against the
inmates who are either handicap or mental ill.” Plaintiff also requests the Court to issue an order
“to stop all federal funding going to the Department of Corrections for Kentucky until KSR staff
comply with all ADA standards . . . .” Further, Plaintiff requests “the Federal Court to make a
surprise visit to KSR” to observe the alleged ADA violations. Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to
“order Defendants to produce documents Defendants will not release to the Plaintiff.”
The Court only recently performed initial review of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other
grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) and entered an Order Regarding Service and
Scheduling Order (DNs 12 & 13). A review of the docket in this case reveals that Defendants
have not yet answered the complaint. At this early stage of the litigation, the Court will not grant
the relief requested. The relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled will be determined by the
outcome of this action.

Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to bring claims on behalf of other prisoners,
Plaintiff does not have standing to bring a claim on another’s behalf. Odom v. Hiland,
No. 5:13CV-P29-R, 2013 WL 4045367, at *5 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 8, 2013); see also Shepherd v.
Wellman, 313 F.3d 963, 970 (6th Cir. 2002) (finding that the plaintiff could not appear pro se on
behalf of other’s claims).
As for Plaintiff’s request for the Court to “order Defendants to produce documents
Defendants will not release to the Plaintiff,” Plaintiff provides no facts to support this request nor
does he indicate that he has engaged in any discovery requesting documents from Defendants.
For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to Submit Exhibits”
(DN 8) is DENIED.
Date:

December 13, 2017

cc:

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4413.003

2