Billizone et al v. West Feliciana Parish Work Release et al

Filing 13

RULING denying 12 Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 12/28/2011. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ERNEST BILLIZONE SR.
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

WEST FELICIANA PARISH
WORK RELEASE, ET AL

NUMBER 11-647-BAJ-SCR

RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

Before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Discovery. Record document number 12.
Plaintiff filed a Request for Production of Documents
pursuant to Rule 34, Fed.R.Civ.P., on November 14, 2011 (dated
November 12, 2011) in which he sought production of various
documents from the defendants. The certificate of service
states that it was mailed to “West Feliciana Parish Work
Release” and this court.

The certificate of service does not

indicate that it was served on any of the other defendants.
None of the defendants have filed an answer or otherwise made
an

appearance

through

counsel,

and

the

record

does

not

indicate that any of them have yet been served with a summons
and the complaint by the U.S. Marshal.
Plaintiff

cannot

move

to

compel

discovery

from

the

defendants who were not properly served with the discovery

requests. As to defendant West Feliciana Parish Work Release,
it appears from the allegations in the complaint that it is a
facility at which inmates reside while participating in a work
release program.

It is not a proper party defendant because

it is not a “person” against whom a claim can be brought under
42 U.S.C. § 1983.

So even thought the plaintiff may have mailed

his request for production of documents to it, because it is not an
entity subject to suit under § 1983 it cannot be subjected to
discovery under Rule 34.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery is
denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 28, 2011.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2