Daniels v. Tharp et al

Filing 56

Order denying Motion for Medical Expert Assistance(Related Doc # 42 ),and denying Motion to compel Plaintiff's prior counsel to produce records (Related Doc # 51 ). Daniels request for issuance of subpoenas is denied as premature. Daniels may refile his Requests, if appropriate, after a ruling on summary judgment. Judge Jack Zouhary on 7/27/18.(C,D)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Case No. 3:16 CV 2830

Jamie Daniels,
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
AND REQUESTED SUBPOENAS

-vsJUDGE JACK ZOUHARY
John Tharp, et al.,
Defendants.

Pending before this Court are Plaintiff pro se Jamie Daniels’ Motion for Medical Expert
Assistance (Doc. 42), Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Prior Counsel to Produce Records (Doc. 51),
several Requests for Issuance of Subpoenas (Docs. 43–45), and several Proposed Subpoenas (Docs.
46–49, 54).
First, Daniels asks this Court to grant “an Order for Medical Expert assistance” because he
“does not have the funds” to do so himself (Doc. 42, Doc. 42-1 at 2). But although Daniels is
proceeding in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not grant this Court authority to pay his expert
witness fees. Johnson v. Hubbard, 698 F.2d 286, 288–89 (6th Cir. 1983), abrogated on other grounds
by L & W Supply Corp. v. Acuity, 475 F.3d 737 (6th Cir 2007). Further, “there is no constitutional
requirement to waive costs of transcripts, expert witness fees, and fees to secure depositions.” Id. at
289. This Motion is denied.
Second, Daniels seeks an order compelling his prior counsel to produce a variety of discovery
documents. He “contends that [his prior counsel] has failed to produce and provide him with the
requested” documents (Doc. 51 at 2). But his prior counsel certified to this Court “that the complete

file for the instant case was sent to, and delivered to,” Daniels (Doc. 32 at 1). He also submitted
receipts confirming as much (Doc. 32-1). This Court sees no reason, other than Daniels’ bald
assertions, to doubt his prior counsel’s certification.
Daniels further asserts that his prior counsel “possibly failed to obtain valuable discovery and
possibly failed to file a discovery order,” and that he will suffer “prejudice due to the initial lack of
discovery” (Doc. 51 at 2–3). Daniels seeks no identifiable relief other than compelling his prior
counsel to produce documents, which has already been addressed. To the extent Daniels’ statements
can be construed as alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, this Court notes that “[i]t is well-settled
that there is no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel in a civil case.”
Adams v. Vidor, 12 F. App’x 317, 319 (6th Cir. 2001).
Third, Daniels asks this Court to issue subpoenas to Jail Counselor Eric Henderson,
Correctional Officer D. O’Neil, Correctional Officer Mylek, Nurse Jennifer, Correctional Officer Ali
Ittiawi, Correctional Officer Burdge, Andrew Fuqua, Attorney Jane Roman, Lieutenant Coleman, and
Nurse Patty (Docs. 43–45). On their face, the Requests seek subpoenas directing these non-parties
to appear and testify at the October 2018 trial. They are therefore denied as premature. The parties
are currently briefing summary judgment, with Daniels’ response due by Wednesday, August 15,
2018. Daniels may refile his Requests, if appropriate, after a ruling on summary judgment.
Finally, Daniels filed several Proposed Subpoenas addressed to additional non-parties (Docs.
46–49, 54). These, too, are denied. To the extent he also seeks to have these non-parties appear at
the October 2018 trial, the Proposed Subpoenas are premature for the reasons stated above. And to
the extent the Proposed Subpoenas can be interpreted as discovery requests, they are untimely. The
liability discovery deadline in this case was May 28, 2018 (Doc. 24). Although this Court allowed
Daniels until July 10, 2018 “to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests,” it did not otherwise
2

extend the discovery deadlines (Doc. 31; see also Doc. 34) (emphasis added). Nor did Daniels request
any such extension. Whether any additional discovery as to the issue of damages is necessary can be
addressed, if needed, after a ruling on summary judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Jack Zouhary
JACK ZOUHARY
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
July 27, 2018

3