Aiken v. Hall et al

Filing 36

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 32 Motion for discovery from Sheriff Chip Hall is DENIED. Plaintiff's 32 Motion for discovery to continue is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff's 32 Motion for an open trial is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in accordance with the terms of this Order. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 6/6/2019. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(kby)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:17-cv-00097-FDW
JAY JUNIOR AIKEN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LINDA LEE,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Request for Nominal Damages,
Compensatory Damages and Punitive Damages Because of Being Hurt on Purpose By
Defendants,” which the Court construes as a motion for miscellaneous relief. [Doc. 32].
The Plaintiff filed the instant motion on March 11, 2019. Despite the caption of the motion,
it appears the Plaintiff is seeking an order from the Court compelling Sheriff Chip L. Hall, no
longer a party to this action, to produce “all video of Mr. Aiken with all requested documents in
conjunction to [h]is filing of 42 U.S.C. § U.S.C. Civil Suit Action.” Plaintiff also requests “to
allow discovery to continue” and an “open Court trial with the public media to broadcast the trial
in conjunction to all information added to [h]is Complaint.” [Doc. 32 at 1].
As to the Plaintiff’s request for the Court to order Mr. Hall to produce certain video footage,
the Court will deny this motion. Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel certain discovery from
Defendants, together with the discovery requests he had served on Defendants. [Doc. 33]. It does
that Plaintiff requested that any video footage in these requests. [See id.]. Plaintiff must seek
discovery from the party or individual directly rather than filing motions with the Court. Plaintiff’s
motion for the Court to order Mr. Hall to produce video footage is, therefore, denied.

As to Plaintiff’s request “for discovery to continue,” the Court has held the May 15, 2019
discovery deadline in abeyance by separate Order. [Doc. 34]. As such, the Court will deny
Plaintiff’s request as moot.
As for Plaintiff’s request for an “open Court trial” broadcast by the media, the Court has
no authority to command the media to be present to broadcast Plaintiff’s trial. Should Plaintiff’s
case proceed to trial, Plaintiff may renew his motion to allow media access inside the courtroom
at that time.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff’s motion for discovery from Sheriff Chip Hall [Doc. 32] is DENIED.
(2) Plaintiff’s motion for discovery to continue [Doc. 32] is DENIED as moot.
(3) Plaintiff’s motion for an open trial [Doc. 32] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
in accordance with the terms of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: June 6, 2019

2