Capnord v. Fred's

Filing 20

ORDER denying 18 Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander on 02/10/16. (sd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
SAMUEL LYDELL CAPNORD

v.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-168-DMB-SAA

FRED’S

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Samuel Lydell Capnord has filed an untitled motion for the court or grand
jury to subpoena defendant’s prior EEOC discrimination violations and lawsuit settlement
history. Docket 18. Plaintiff also requests a copy of the surveillance video of the incident that is
the basis of the lawsuit. Defendant has not responded to plaintiff’s motion.
As explained in a previous order of the court, docket 15, there are two types of legal
proceedings: criminal and civil. The Fifth Amendment to the constitution provides in part that
“[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” U.S. Const. amend. V. As such, a grand jury
operates solely on the criminal side of legal matters, not the civil side. Because a grand jury
operates only in criminal matters, a grand jury is not a mechanism, mess less a form of relief,
available to a civil plaintiff. For this reason, the plaintiff is not entitled to have the grand jury
issue subpoenas in this case.
As to plaintiff’s request that the court issue subpoenas for defendant’s prior EEOC
discrimination violations and lawsuit settlement history, the court declines to do so. Plaintiff is
entitled to request from defendant all non-privileged and discovery that is relevant to any party’s
claim or defense. Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff is directed specifically to Rules 26 through

37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 26 of the Local Uniform Civil Rules for
instructions on how to appropriately proceed with the discovery process. Plaintiff is reminded
that, even though he is a pro se plaintiff, he is expected to abide by all applicable Federal Rules
and the Local Rules of this court. It is
ORDERED:
That plaintiff’s untitled motion is DENIED.
THIS, the 10th day of February, 2016.
/s/ S. Allan Alexander
.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE