Cockshutt v. State of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction et al

Filing 85

OPINION AND ORDER denying 74 request for funds and 76 motion for continuance. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 5/31/13. (rew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

JOHN D. COCKSHUTT,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 2:12-cv-532
Magistrate Judge King

STATE OF OHIO, DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION & CORRECTION,
et al.,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court, with the consent of the parties
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), on plaintiff’s Request for Funds to
Conduct Discovery (“Plaintiff’s Request for Funds”), Doc. No. 74.
Plaintiff seeks $1,000.00 to hire an investigative company pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1) “to conduct discovery at Madison Correctional
Institution.”

Id. at pp. 1-2.

Specifically, plaintiff intends to

photograph the visiting room, hospital, receiving building, and the
“[f]rontage and [b]acksides” of the Madison Correctional Institution.
Id.

Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to receive funds because he

is proceeding in forma pauperis.

Id.

According to plaintiff, the

discovery sought will “demonstrate to this Court the sheer ignorance
of the allegations against this Plaintiff.”

Id.

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s Request for Funds on the basis that
plaintiff is not entitled to funds under the applicable statute, 18
U.S.C. § 3006A.

Doc. No. 75.

Plaintiff has not filed a reply.

Plaintiff’s Request for Funds refers to 42 U.S.C. § 3006A;
however, the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, appears to be
the applicable statute:
Upon request.--Counsel for a person who is financially
unable to obtain investigative, expert, or other services
necessary for adequate representation may request them in
an ex parte application. Upon finding, after appropriate
inquiry in an ex parte proceeding, that the services are
necessary and that the person is financially unable to
obtain them, the court, or the United States magistrate
judge if the services are required in connection with a
matter over which he has jurisdiction, shall authorize
counsel to obtain the services.
18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1).

Section 3006A does not, however, apply in

civil actions such as the case presently before the Court.
U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(1).

See 18

Plaintiff’s Request for Funds, Doc. No. 74, is

therefore DENIED.
This matter is also before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion for
Continuance, Doc. No. 76, in which plaintiff seeks “a 14 day
continuance to proceed in forma pauperis” so that he can obtain
financial documents to establish his indigence.

Plaintiff was granted

leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) on June
18, 2012.

Order, Doc. No. 2.

No further action is required at this

time for plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff’s Motion

for Continuance, Doc. No. 76, is therefore DENIED as moot.

May 31, 2013

s/Norah McCann King_______
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge

2