Courville v. Smith et al

Filing 41

ORDER denying 37 Motion to Have Mark Hunter Produce Copies. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 6/7/2017. (crt,Williams, L)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
CHASE M. COURVILLE

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-0684
SEC. P

VS.

:

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

WARDEN SMITH, ET AL.

:

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

ORDER
Before the court is a motion [doc. # 37] filed by plaintiff pro se Chase Courville to obtain
an order requiring “Mark Hunter” to make copies of his exhibits for purposes of responding to
defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment [doc. # 32]. On May 4, 2017, the court
noted that it was unable to assess the relevance of the undisclosed exhibits, and thus ordered
plaintiff to supplement his motion by May 18, 2017, with a detailed description of each exhibit
that he intended, but was unable to submit. (May 4, 2017, Order [doc. # 39]).
Plaintiff did not so comply. Instead, on May 12, 2017, plaintiff filed a document entitled
“Motion for Tranvers” [sic], which he described as a response to defendants’ answer to the
complaint, as amended, and to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. [doc. # 40]. Plaintiff
also managed to attach fourteen pages of exhibits to this submission. Id.
Given plaintiff’s failure to respond to the court order, together with his subsequent
submission of exhibits in connection with his “Motion for Tranvers,” the court necessarily
concludes that plaintiff no longer wishes, or needs to proceed with his motion for copies.
Regardless, he failed to establish the relevance of the undisclosed exhibits that necessitated his
motion. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for copies [doc. # 37] is DENIED.1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, consistent with the court’s May 4, Order, plaintiff is
accorded until June 20, 2017, in which to file a supplemental response to defendant’s motion for
summary judgment.2
In Chambers, at Monroe, Louisiana, this 7th day of June 2017.

__________________________________
KAREN L. HAYES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

As this motion is not excepted within 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor dispositive of any
claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this
order is issued under the authority thereof, and in accordance with the standing order of this
court. Any appeal must be made to the district judge in accordance with Rule 72(a) and L.R.
74.1(W).
2

Courville is reminded that, “in the face of the defendant's properly supported motion
for summary judgment, the plaintiff [can]not rest on his allegations . . . to get to [trial] without
any significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint.” King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d
344, 346 (5 Cir. 1994) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). To survive defendants’
motion for summary judgment regarding plaintiff’s alleged failure to exhaust administrative
remedies, plaintiff generally is required to controvert defendants’ version of events with his own
competent summary judgment evidence, e.g., an affidavit, or a declaration sworn under penalty
of perjury, 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
Under § 1746, plaintiff may set forth his version of the facts in a declaration and then
conclude the document with the following verification, “I declare (or certify, verify, or state)
under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
28 U.S.C. §1746.
2