Brannan v. Bridgeton Police Department et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Motion to Compelling Address" 15 is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for discovery from the Bridgeton Police Department is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Court's order denying appointment of counsel is DENIED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 5/30/14. (JWD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU RT
EAS TER N DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EAS TER N DIVISION
HARRELL S. BRANNAN,
KEVIN FORCE, et al.,
MEM ORA NDU M AND ORD ER
ion to Compelling Address,"
This matter is before the Court on Plain tiffs pros e "Mot
t to supply the United States Marshals
requesting the Court order the Bridgeton Police Departmen
Service with the last known address of Defendant Dale Rowe
for service of summons. (Doc. No.
served on April 23, 2014. (Doc. No.
15) A review of the file indicates that Rowe was properly
their appearance on beha lf of Officer
23) Peter Dunne and Pitzer Snodgrass, P.C., have entered
. No. 26) Accordingly, Plain tiffs
Rowe (Doc. No. 25) and filed an answer on his behalf. (Doc
motion will be denied as moot.
e Department to submit to the
Plaintiff also requests the Court order the Bridgeton Polic
particularly any disciplinary records,
Court a complete copy of Row e's employment records, and
. Plain tiffs discovery request is
to assist him in establishing his claims of abuse by Rowe
legal advice to any party, but notes
improperly filed with the Court. The Court cannot provide
he must comply with the Federal
that if Plaintiff seeks to obtain documents from a nonparty,
sions of Rule 45.
Rules of Civil Procedure, and in particular with the provi
for appointment of counsel.
Finally, Plaintiff requests the Court reconsider his request
, to cause it to reconsider its previous order
The Court finds nothing in the record, however
sel. Again, this excessive force and unlawful
denying Plai ntiff s moti on for appointment of coun
. Moreover, Plain tiff has clearly demonstrated
arrest case is neither factually nor legally complex
that he is able to articulate and present his claim
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plai ntiff s "Mo
tion to Compelling Address" 
DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plai ntiff s requ
Police Department is DENIED without prejudice
est for discovery from the Bridgeton
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plai ntiff s moti
on for reconsideration of the Cou rt's
order denying appointment of counsel is DENIED
Dated thi~ day of May, 2014.
TED STATES DIS TRI CT JUD GE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?