Mercer v. Prator et al

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 59 Motion to Subpoena Medical Records #1; denying 60 Motion to Subpoena Medical Records #2; denying 61 Motion to Compel Interrogatories; denying 62 Motion to Compel Expert Testimony; denying 63 Motion to Compel Medical Exam; denying 64 Motion to Compel Inspection Reports. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby on 6/19/2018. (crt,Keller, J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
TODD H. MERCER

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-cv-0670

VERSUS

CHIEF JUDGE HICKS

STEVE PRATOR, ET AL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Todd Mercer (“Plaintiff”) is a self-represented inmate who filed this civil rights
action based on allegations that he was housed in the Caddo Correctional Center (“CCC”)
and exposed to black mold when he was housed there between August 6, 2014 and October
15, 2015. Plaintiff is now housed in the Tensas Parish Detention Center. Before the court
are a number of discovery-related motions filed by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff has filed two Motions to Subpoena Medical Records (Docs. 59 and 60)
that ask the court to subpoena his medical records from the Bossier Medium Security
facility and the Tensas Detention Center. Plaintiff contends that the records will show his
history of treatment for symptoms related to mold exposure. He has also filed a Motion
to Compel Inspection Reports (Doc. 64) that asks the court to order the Caddo Parish
Health Department to produce inspection reports for the jail issued between 2012 and 2014.
All three motions are denied.
The court does not subpoena medical or other records. Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 45, a pro se party may request a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, from
the Clerk of Court. The party must then complete the subpoena and serve it. Service may

be made by any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party, and service requires
delivering a copy to the named person. Rule 45 also sets forth the contents that must be
included in the subpoena.
Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Compel Interrogatories (Doc. 61) in which he asks
the court to compel three physicians who have treated him to answer several questions
about their treatment of Plaintiff. The motion is denied. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
33 provides that interrogatories may be served on any other party. None of the three
physicians is a party to this suit. If a party wishes to question a non-party witness, he may
do so by oral deposition under Rule 30. A prisoner may also seek leave of court under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31 to question a non-party witness by means of a
deposition by written questions. Rule 31 sets forth the requirements for depositions by
written questions, which include serving the proposed questions on the other parties with
a notice stating the deponent’s name and address. Both rules contemplate that the
deposition will be administered by a court reporter or other authorized officer, and it is the
prisoner’s responsibility to arrange for such an officer and pay their fees. Court reporters
are not required to work for free for pauper parties.
Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Compel Expert Testimony (Doc. 62) by which
he seeks to require Dr. Joseph Mercola to answer written interrogatories.

Plaintiff

represents that Dr. Mercola is a specialist in mold poisoning who has studied the effects of
mold on humans and has published articles on the topic. The motion is denied for the same
reasons given above. The court does not administer interrogatories or other questions to
non-party witnesses. Plaintiff must employ the procedure allowed by the Federal Rules of
Page 2 of 3

Civil Procedure if he wishes to question a witness. Expert witnesses are ordinarily hired
by a party, and they are not required to render opinions for free when asked by a pauper
party.
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Medical Exam (Doc. 63) that asks the court to
order a surgical procedure that Plaintiff argues will remove a persistent sinus infection. He
represents that the physician at the Tensas facility has treated him with steroids and
antibiotics, but without success. The motion is denied. This motion asks for extraordinary
injunctive relief that could be appropriate only if Plaintiff prevailed on the merits of a
medical indifference claim against the Tensas authorities, who are not parties to this case.
Such an order is beyond the scope of this case.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 19th day of June, 2018.

Page 3 of 3