Stills v. Salem, Missouri Police Dept. et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Submit Evidence is DENIED. [ECF No. 64 ]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Cohen on 9/9/21. (JAB)
Case: 4:20-cv-01099-PLC Doc. #: 66 Filed: 09/09/21 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 433
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
TROY ALAN STILLS,
ROBERT SIMPSON, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the fourth motion of self-represented Plaintiff Troy Alan
Stills to submit discovery. [ECF No. 64]. For the following reasons, the motion will be denied.
On May 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed a document titled, “Motion to Submit Video – Partial
Discovery – Requesting Service of Video to Defendants.” [ECF No. 55]. Plaintiff stated he was
“notifying the Courts and Defendants that body-cam video footage [would] be sent to the Court”
and asked the Court to accept it as “partial discovery.” On June 24, 2021, the Court denied
Plaintiff’s motion pursuant to Local Rule 3.02(A), which instructs “discovery . . . shall not be filed
with the Court except as exhibits to a motion or memorandum,” and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 5(d)(1)(A), which prohibits the filing of discovery material “until [it is] used in the
proceeding.” [ECF No. 59].
On July 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed two motions to file discovery with the Court. [ECF Nos.
60, 61]. Attached to Plaintiff’s motions were police reports and depositions from his underlying
state criminal case, and a compact disc purporting to depict images of his alleged injuries. On July
13, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motions to submit evidence and struck the exhibits from the
record. [ECF No. 63]. The Court again cited to Local Rule 3.02(A) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 5(d)(1)(A). Plaintiff was instructed that discovery requests are not to be filed with the
Case: 4:20-cv-01099-PLC Doc. #: 66 Filed: 09/09/21 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 434
Court, but should instead be submitted between the parties. See Local Rule 3.02(A). Selfrepresented litigants, such as Plaintiff, must comply with the local and federal rules. See e.g.,
American Inmate Paralegal Assoc. v. Cline, 859 F.2d 59, 61 (8th Cir. 1988 (per curiam) (“Pro se
litigants are not excused from complying with court orders or substantive and procedural laws”);
Clemons v. Lombardi, Case No. 4:13-cv-458-CDP, 2014 WL 409107, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Feb 3, 2014)
(citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834-35, 834 n. 46 (1975)).
In the instant motion, Plaintiff again seeks to submit body-cam video footage with the
Court. For the same reasons stated in the May 12, 2021 and July 1, 2021 Orders, Plaintiff’s motion
will be denied.
Accordingly, after careful consideration,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Submit Evidence is DENIED.
[ECF No. 64].
PATRICIA L. COHEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 9th day of September, 2021
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?