Marshall v. Pohlman
ORDER denying 14 Motion to Retrieve Evidence from Defendant. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 6/9/2017. (clc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MADISON MARSHALL, III
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE KAREN WELLS ROBY
Before the Court is a Motion to Retrieve Evidence from Defendant (R. Doc. 14) filed
by pro se Plaintiff Madison Marshall. Marshall has filed the instant motion “requesting all
information to subpoena witnesses or Plaintiff to this case.” R. Doc. 14., p. 1. In reading the
motion, the Court understands Marshall to be seeking discovery from the Defendant. As such, the
Court denies Marshall’s motion as procedurally improper. See Powell v. United States, No. 091873, 2009 WL 5184338 at *1 (E.D. La. Dec. 22, 2009). While pro se plaintiffs are afforded a
certain amount of leeway, “[a] pro se litigant is not exempt from compliance with relevant rules
of procedural and substantive law.” Stinson v. Edwards, No. 12-404, 2013 WL 3783976, at *5
(E.D. La. July 18, 2013) (citing Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981) and Beard v.
Experian Info. Solutions Inc., 214 F. App'x 459, 462 (5th Cir. 2007)). As such, Marshall “should
pursue the information he seeks by serving discovery requests on the [the Defendant] in accordance
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court.” Powell, 2009 WL
5184338 at *1; see also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26–37.
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Retrieve Evidence from Defendant
(R. Doc. 14) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 9th day of June 2017.
KAREN WELLS ROBY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?