Caldwell v. Southfield, City of et al

Filing 38

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 35 Motion To Take Deposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (Ciesla, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY CALDWELL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-15283
District Judge Linda V. Parker
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TAKE DEPOSITION [Doc. #35]
Plaintiff Timothy Caldwell is a pro se litigant who is incarcerated by the Michigan
Department of Corrections at the Macomb Correctional Facility. He has sued the City of
Southfield and 16 Southfield police officers. Before the Court is his Motion for Order to
Take Defendant Blake Matatall’s Deposition [Doc. #35], in which he requests that the
deposition be scheduled at the United States Courthouse in Detroit, and that the Court
provide for a court reporter to record the proceedings. Implicit in the motion is a request
that Mr. Caldwell be transported to the courthouse for the deposition.
Although Mr. Caldwell was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), and thus obtained a waiver of the prepayment of
filing fees, IFP status does not entitle him to have the court or the Defendants fund his
litigation costs. See Johnson v. Hubbard, 698 F.2d 286, 289 (6th Cir.1983), abrogated on
other grounds by L&W Supply Corp. v. Acuity, 475 F.3d 737 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that
there is no constitutional or statutory requirement to waive an indigent prisoner plaintiff's

-1-

costs of discovery); see also McCloy v. Correction Medical Services, 2008 WL 5351014,
*1 (E.D. Mich. 2008)(“Section 1915(a)(1)...authorizes the Court to waive certain fees
associated with litigation, but does not provide that the Court may require defendants to
pay plaintiff’s discovery costs. Such costs of litigation are to be borne by an indigent
party”); Kensu v. Rapelje, 2014 WL 1028948 (E.D. Mich. 2014)(denying indigent
plaintiff’s request for appointment of medical expert); Toliver v. Community Action
Commission to Help the Economy, Inc., 613 F.Supp. 1070, 1072 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (“[t]here
[is] no clear statutory authority for prepayment of discovery costs pursuant to 1915 or
otherwise”); Sturdevant v. Deer, 69 F.R.D. 17, 19 (E.D.Wis.1975) (§ 1915 does not
authorize federal funds for the “cost of taking and transcribing a deposition”).
As the Court pointed out in Johnson v. Hubbard, while an indigent plaintiff is
clearly at a disadvantage vis-a-vis a more monied litigant, there are nevertheless
“numerous alternative methods to proceed with his case.” Id. at 289. For example, Mr.
Caldwell can submit written interrogatories or requests to admit to the Defendants.
Plaintiff’s motion [Doc. #35] is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: January 17, 2015

-2-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on
January 17, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.
s/Carolyn M. Ciesla
Case Manager

-3-