Ballay v. Gusman et al
Filing
26
ORDER AND REASONS ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Jon Christopher Ballay's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and his 25 Motion to Compel is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 9/24/2014.(blg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JON CHRISTOPHER BALLAY
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 14-515
MARLIN N. GUSMAN, et al.
SECTION: R(2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiff Jon Christopher Ballay’s
prisoner complaint,1 and the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") that Ballay's petition be dismissed with
prejudice.2 The Court, having reviewed de novo the complaint, the
record, the applicable law and the Magistrate Judge's unopposed
R&R, hereby approves the R&R and adopts it as its opinion.
Therefore, the Court orders that plaintiff’s complaint be
dismissed with prejudice.
Also before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Production of Letter of Incarceration,3 which was filed after the
Magistrate Judge issued the R&R. Plaintiff moves the Court to
compel defendants to produce a certified letter of incarceration
related to plaintiff’s sentence.
Construed broadly, plaintiff’s motion appears to be a motion
to compel discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. The
1
R. Doc. 1.
2
R. Doc. 24.
3
R. Doc. 25.
motion is both procedurally improper and irrelevant to the issues
in plaintiff's underlying § 1983 complaint. First, plaintiff
failed to previously serve defendants with a written discovery
request the production of the certified letter of incarceration
in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 34(a). Thus, defendants had no opportunity to respond or
object to plaintiff's discovery request before plaintiff filed
his motion to compel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2).
Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limit the
scope of discovery to "any nonprivileged matter relevant to any
party’s claim or defense." Generally, information is discoverable
if it "appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); In re Leblanc,
559 Fed. Appx. 389, 392 (5th Cir. 2014). The substance of
plaintiff’s motion to compel is completely unrelated to the
allegations that form the basis of his § 1983 complaint.
Plaintiff’s § 1983 complaint alleges that defendants subjected
plaintiff and other Orleans Parish Prison (“OPP”) inmates to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement, including broken
drainage pipes that allegedly caused sewage backup in the
inmates’ “tents.”4 Plaintiff’s motion to compel does not even
mention plaintiff’s living conditions while incarcerated at OPP.5
4
R. Doc. 1.
5
R. Doc. 25.
2
Instead, plaintiff requests a certified letter of incarceration
to assist him in ensuring that his incarceration sentence
reflects time already served while awaiting adjudication of
plaintiff’s criminal case in Louisiana’s 24th Judicial Court,
Parish of Jefferson.6 Because plaintiff’s motion to compel is
both procedurally improper and irrelevant to claims and defenses
at issue in this case, the motion is denied.
In conclusion, Jon Christopher Ballay's complaint is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and his Motion to Compel is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of September, 2014.
24th
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Id.
3
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?