Walker v. Gusman et al

Filing 65

ORDER that the 53 MOTION for Extension of Time to File is DENIED. The 54 MOTION for Court Intervention is DENIED. Defendants are ORDERED to file a response re: 55 MOTION to Compel by 4/19/2013. The 56 MOTION for Hearing is DENIED. The 57 MOTION for Order to Show Cause is DENIED. The 60 MOTION to Produce is DENIED. The 61 MOTION to Compel is DENIED. The 62 MOTION for Hearing is DENIED. The 63 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint and 64 MOTION to File Abridged/Amended Petition Excerpts are DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 4/11/13.(plh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MARK WALKER

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 12-2521

MARLIN GUSMAN, SHERIFF,
ORLEANS PARISH, ET AL.

SECTION: “S” (3)

ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a “Motion for Extension of Plaintiff’s Deadline to File His Witness &
Exhibits Lists and Pre-Trial Motions.” Rec. Doc. 53. That motion is DENIED. The Court has
already extended the deadline to April 30, 2013, at plaintiff’s request. Rec. Doc. 26. In that the trial
in this matter is set for June 10, 2013, any further extensions are impractical, would pose an undue
burden on the Court, and would prejudice the defendants.
Plaintiff has also filed a “Motion for Court Intervention and Orders to Non-Defent [sic]
Parties (ie LSP, Angola) to Either Give Plaintiff Back His Documents - Or - Order Prison Produce
Another Set of Medical & Mental Health Records.” Rec. Doc. 54. That motion is DENIED. The
Court has repeatedly stated that it will not interject itself into the ongoing disputes plaintiff is having
with the officials at the Louisiana State Penitentiary (“LSP”). As the Court has previously
explained, the LSP officials are not defendants in this action and any dispute he has with them is not
a part of this lawsuit. If plaintiff believes that his rights have been violated by such officials, he
should file an administrative grievance and, if necessary, a separate lawsuit against the proper
individual(s) in an appropriate court. This Court will not micro-manage the LSP legal services

program.
Plaintiff has also filed a “Motion to Compell [sic] Document Production and Other Entitled
Evidence.” Rec. Doc. 55. Defendants are ORDERED to file a response to that motion on or before
April 19, 2013, at which time the motion will be taken under submission without oral argument.
Plaintiff has also filed a “Motion for Phone Conference/Hearing with Court.” Rec. Doc. 56.
That motion is DENIED in that a conference is not necessary at this time.
Plaintiff has also filed a “Motion for Order to Show Cause.” Rec. Doc. 57. That motion is
DENIED. As noted above, defendants have been ordered to respond to plaintiff’s motion to compel.
Plaintiff has also filed a “Motion for Production of Hearing Transcripts in Case 2:12-00859.”
Rec. Doc. 60. In that motion, he requests that the Court order the Clerk of Court or Court Reporter
to produce and provide him at no cost copies of all of the transcripts in that class action. That
motion is DENIED. If plaintiff so desires, he may request that the attorneys representing him in that
matter obtain and forward him copies of the transcripts he is seeking.
Plaintiff has also filed a “Motion to Compell [sic] Defendants Comply with Local Rule 16.3,
16.6.” Rec. Doc. 61. That motion is DENIED. Defendants have expressed no interest whatsoever
in entering into a settlement with plaintiff.
Plaintiff has also filed a “Motion for Sheduling [sic], Issuing Supeanas [sic] and Production
of Witness for Pre-Trial Depositions.” Rec. Doc. 62. That motion is DENIED. If plaintiff is
interested in taking depositions and, importantly, has the financial resources to do so, he must make
the necessary arrangements in accordance with the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Although plaintiff is proceeding as a pauper in this civil action, “he is not entitled to public funding
-2-

to defray the costs of the depositions.” Doye v. Colvin, No. CV408-174, 2009 WL 764980, at *1
(S.D. Ga. Mar. 23, 2009) (and cases cited therein). As one federal district court has explained:
An inmate proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil action may not issue
subpoenas without paying the required fees. See Pedraza v. Jones, 71 F.3d 194, 196
n.4 (5th Cir. 1995); Hodge v. Prince, 730 F.Supp. 747, 751 (N.D. Tex.1990), aff’d
mem. 923 F.2d 853 (5th Cir. 1991). Consequently, plaintiff must still pay fees
associated with any depositions of defendants. See Tajeddini v. Gluch, 942 F.Supp.
772, 782 (D. Conn. 1996) (“In forma pauperis status does not require the
Government to advance funds to pay for deposition expenses.”); Fernandez v. Kash
N’ Karry Food Stores, Inc., 136 F.R.D. 495, 496 (M.D. Fla. 1991) (witness and
mileage fees required to be paid by indigent plaintiff). These deposition costs would
include not only any fees, but the cost of the court reporter’s services as well as the
cost for copies of the transcripts. Plaintiff may not expect the Court or defendants
to pay for these fees and expenses simply because he is an indigent inmate
proceeding pro se in this action.
Brown v. Carr, 236 F.R.D. 311, 313 (S.D. Tex. 2006) (footnote omitted).
Plaintiff has also filed motions to amend the complaint. Rec. Docs. 63 and 64. Those
motions are DENIED. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), plaintiff is no longer entitled to amend his
complaint as a matter of course; rather, he may do so only with the opposing parties’ written consent
or the Court’s leave. The opposing parties have not given their written consent to the proposed
amendments. Further, justice does not require that the Court allow plaintiff to amend the complaint
in the manner proposed at this late stage of the proceeding.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this eleventh day of April, 2013.

____________________________________
DANIEL E. KNOWLES, III
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-3-