Decoteau v. Houston et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's "Motion [for] Name Changing Amendment" (Filing No. 12 ) is granted. The clerks office is directed to update the court's records to reflect the spelling of the following Defendants' names: Michael Kenney, Christina Ferguson, and Charles Coren. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (Filing No. 13 ) is denied. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Filing No. 14 ) is denied. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CHRISTOPHER L. DECOTEAU,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ROBERT HOUSTON, MICHAEL
)
KINNEY, Director, RANDY KOHL, )
Medical Director, DIANE SABAKA )
RHINE, Warden, CHRISTINE
)
FERGUSON, Doctor, and CHARLES )
LOREN, Eye Clinic,
)
)
Defendants.
)

4:14CV3165

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Christopher Decoteau’s (“Plaintiff”)
“Motion [for] Name Changing Amendment” (Filing No. 12), Motion to Compel
Discovery (Filing No. 13), and Motion to Amend (Filing No. 14). The court will
address each of Plaintiff’s motions in the paragraphs that follow.
Plaintiff asks the court for leave to amend his Complaint (Filing No. 1) to
reflect the correct spelling of three of the defendants’ names. (Filing No. 12.) In
accordance with NECivR 15.1(b), the court will consider Plaintiff’s “Motion [for]
Name Changing Amendment” as supplemental to his original Complaint, and direct
the clerk’s office to update the court’s records to reflect the correct spelling of the
defendants’ names. See NECivR 15.1(b) (stating that in pro se cases, the court may
consider an amended pleading as supplemental to the original pleading, rather than as
superseding).
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling discovery of Defendant Robert Houston’s
address so that he may serve him with process. (Filing No. 13.) However, no
discovery or service of process may take place in this case at this time. The court is

required to review in forma pauperis complaints to determine whether summary
dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court must dismiss a
complaint or any portion thereof that states a frivolous or malicious claim, that fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The court has not yet conducted an initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint
pursuant to section 1915(e). No discovery may take place in this case unless the court
determines that this matter may proceed to service of process. The court will conduct
an initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint in its normal course of business.
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the Nebraska Department of Correctional
Services (“NDCS”) to release Plaintiff’s confiscated funds so that he may use them
to pay his filing fee in this matter. (Filing No. 14.) Even assuming this court has the
authority to order the NDCS to remit Plaintiff’s confiscated funds, Plaintiff has not
set forth any compelling reason why his confiscated funds (rather than his available
funds) should be used to pay his filing fee in this action. Plaintiff’s trust account
statement reflects that his average unfrozen balance for the six months proceeding the
filing of his Complaint is $28.03. (See Filing No. 6.) Moreover, at least $388.71 was
deposited into Plaintiff’s prison account in the six months preceding the filing of the
Complaint. (Id.) Like all other prisoners who are granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis under section 1915, Plaintiff may pay the filing fee in installments.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request will be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s “Motion [for] Name Changing Amendment” (Filing No. 12)
is granted. The clerk’s office is directed to update the court’s records to reflect the
spelling of the following Defendants’ names: Michael Kenney, Christina Ferguson,
and Charles Coren.
2

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Filing No. 13) is denied.

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Filing No. 14) is denied.

DATED this 12th day of September, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District
of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The
court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases
to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

3