Brannan v. Bridgeton Police Department et al

Filing 28

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,
Plaintiff,
V.

KEVIN FORCE, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 4:14-CV-60-JAR

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
1

, 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
s.
that he is able to articulate and present his claim
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plai ntiff s "Mo

tion to Compelling Address" [15]

i~

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

tJ.

Dated thi~ day of May, 2014.

A. ROSS
TED STATES DIS TRI CT JUD GE

2