Watterson et al v. Burgess et al

Filing 189

ORDER denying 187 Motion Subpoenas at Government ExpenseAdditional Subpoenas at Government Expense and for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum; denying 188 Motion Subpoenas at Government ExpenseAdditional Subpoenas at Government Expense and for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 12/6/16. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(ssh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:13-cv-00159-FDW-DCK
JEFFREY RANDOLPH WATTERSON and )
RANDOLPH ALEXANDER WATTERSON,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WOODY BURGESS, JASON GREEN, )
FRANKIE DELLINGER, JENNIFER HOYLE, )
DAVID HODKINS, BOB AUSTELL, MIKE )
ALLRED, DAVID HODKINS, CITY OF )
CHERRYVILLE,
BEN
BLACKBURN, )
SELECTIVE INS. OF S.C., CHERRYVILLE )
CITY
POLICE
DEPARTMENT
AND )
CHERRYVILLE UTILITIES DEPT.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Randolph Alexander Watterson’s Motion
for Subpoenas at Government Expense (Doc. No. 187) and his Motion for Additional Subpoenas
at Government Expense and for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum (Doc. No. 188).
Plaintiff now appears pro se in this matter and filed the motions on his own behalf. Along with
his motions, Plaintiff submitted 86 subpoenas to be served by the United States Marshal Service.
Upon initial review, the Court finds dozens of the subpoenas to be improperly completed
or lacking relevant information. Moreover, the Court finds the volume of Plaintiff’s request to be
unreasonable in light of the allegations in this case and absent a particular showing identifying the
relevance of each subpoenaed witness. Therefore, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s
Motions for Subpoenas at Government Expense.

Plaintiff may resubmit his motion to renew his request for subpoenas to be issued. Any
renewed motion shall be promptly filed and must identify, with particularity: (1) the person being
subpoenaed, (2) a full and current address, (3) a statement as to why the person is necessary to
testify, and (4) a statement explaining the basis for the personal knowledge of the proposed
testimony. This information is in addition to Plaintiff completing the correct subpoena forms and
submitting that along with his motion.
As to Plaintiff’s request for Writs so that in-custody witnesses can be transferred for
purposes of testifying at trial, Plaintiff must provide the identifying information above, as well as
an affidavit from each of the proposed witnesses providing the details, under oath, of the relevant
testimony they intend to provide.
Finally, Plaintiff is hereby notified that the Court will not allow him an unlimited amount
of time to present his case at trial. The Court has a duty to ensure a fair trial, and the Court must
balance that with efficiency so as to not waste the jury’s time. To that end, the Court advises
Plaintiff to prioritize his list of witnesses and requests for subpoenas so that, after review, the Court
can determine a reasonable number of witnesses to be subpoenaed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Subpoenas at Government
Expense (Docs. Nos. 187, 188) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to be promptly refiled in
accordance with the instructions set forth herein.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED.
Signed: December 6, 2016