Eddowes v. Director of State Department of Corrections et al

Filing 65

MEMORANDUM ORDER - Since this latest motion to compel is not accompanied by a brief which would have explained the plaintiffs entitlement to relief, as required by the local rules, the motion (Doc. 64 ) is DEEMED WITHDRAWN and DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on January 4, 2019. (kjn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHANE EDDOWES
Plaintiff
v.
DIRECTOR, STATE DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 3:18-CV-125
(Judge Caputo)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
I.

Statement of Facts and of the Case

This is a pro se state prisoner civil rights lawsuit. The plaintiff, Shane
Eddowes, is an inmate housed at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) Rockview.
Eddowes’ current complaint levels allegations that often have the quality of things
that are more imagined than real. In his amended complaint Eddowes names multiple
defendants, and the gravamen of Eddowes’ amended complaint is an allegation that
drug manufacturers, pharmacy personnel and his own treating physicians have
entered into a far-reaching conspiracy to illegally substitute adulterated drugs for his
prescription anti-seizure medications.
With the issues in this litigation framed in this fashion, Eddowes previously
filed a motion to compel production of certain information from the defendants.
(Doc. 56.) This motion to compel also had a confused quality to it. Despite the
1

specific allegations in his complaint regarding the furtive substitution of a placebo
for a specific medication at a particular time, Eddowes sought decades worth of
seemingly unrelated information on a host of legal and medical issues from the
defendants, along with certain documents from the Department of Corrections that
relate to his concerns about C.I.A. and F.B.I. neural implants and mind and body
control, a category of discovery claim that Arelies on >fantastic or delusional
scenarios.= Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338
(1989).@ DeGrazia v. F.B.I., 316 F. App'x 172, 173 (3d Cir. 2009). The defendants
responded to these discovery demands by filing a response which indicated that they
have provided Eddowes with approximately 120 documents, all of which confirm
that he is receiving his prescribed medication. (Doc. 58.) The defendants have also
explained to Eddowes that many of the items he seeks do not exist and have
confirmed for him that they are not engaged in neural implants or mind and body
control experiments. (Id.)
Given this response, we denied Eddowes’ motion to compel.
Eddowes has now filed another motion to compel, (Doc.64), which
reprises many of his past demands, and also asks that we order the Department of
Corrections to conduct independent laboratory testing of his hair. The motion is not
accompanied by a brief, as required by the rules of this court. will be denied. This
failure to file a brief has consequences for the plaintiff since we are entitled to deem
the plaintiff to have withdrawn a motion when he fails to properly support that
2

motion by filing a brief in a timely fashion. See, e.g., Salkeld v. Tennis, 248 F. App'x
341 (3d Cir.2007) (affirming dismissal of motion under Local Rule 7.5); Booze v.
Wetzel, 1:12-CV-1307, 2012 WL 6137561 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 16, 2012) report and
recommendation adopted, 1:CV-12-1307, 2012 WL 6138315 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 11,
2012); Breslin v. Dickinson Twp., 1:09BCVB1396, 2011 WL 1577840 (M.D.Pa.
Apr.26, 2011) Prinkey v. Tennis, No. 09B52, 2010 WL 4683757 (M.D.Pa. Nov.10,
2010) (dismissal under Local Rule 7.5); Griffin v. Lackawanna County Prison
Board, No. 07B1683, 2008 WL 4533685 (M.D.Pa.Oct.6, 2008) (dismissal under
Local Rule 7.6).
Since this latest motion to compel is not accompanied by a brief which would
have explained the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief, as required by the local rules, the
motion (Doc. 64) is DEEMED WITHDRAWN and DISMISSED without prejudice.
So ordered this 4th day of January, 2019.

S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

3