Taylor v. Ozmint et al

Filing 114

ORDER denying 53 Motion to Order Defendants to Preserve Evidence; denying 53 Motion for Sanctions; denying as moot 71 Motion to Compel; denying 71 Motion for a "Poor Person" Order; denying as moot 91 Motion to Compel; denying 91 Motion for Sanctions; granting 92 Motion for Subpoena. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J Gossett on 8/22/2011.(jpet, ) Modified to edit text on 8/23/2011 (jpet, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Dion Orlando Taylor,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
John Ozmint, Director; Lt. John Mitchell; Lt. )
Jim Gibson; and Bernard McKie, Warden, in )
their individual capacities,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 0:10-50-HMH-PJG

ORDER

Plaintiff Dion Orlando Taylor, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. This matter is before the court on the
plaintiff’s motions regarding evidence, to compel, for a “poor persons” order, for sanctions, and for
subpoenas. (ECF Nos. 53, 71, 91, & 92.)
Plaintiff moves for the court to order the defendants to “preserve all requested discovery.”
(ECF No. 53.) This motion is denied as moot, as Plaintiff appears to have requested this information
and materials in his discovery.
Plaintiff also requests a court order compelling the defendants to respond to his discovery
requests. (ECF Nos. 71 & 91.) In light of the defendants’ response (ECF No. 93), Plaintiff’s motion
is denied at this time with leave to refile his motion, if necessary, by September 21, 2011 detailing
why he believes additional responses are required. Plaintiff’s motions seeking sanctions against the
defendants are also denied.
Plaintiff’s motion for a “poor persons” order requests that the court allow him to receive free
copies of transcripts and other discovery materials due to his indigent status. While Plaintiff was
Page 1 of 2

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this status
exempts litigants from paying the filing fees in full at the time the lawsuit is filed; it does not exempt
litigants from the costs of copying and filing documents, service of documents other than the
complaint, costs, expert witness fees, or sanctions. See, e.g., In re Richard, 914 F.2d 1526 (6th Cir.
1990) (stating that the granting of in forma pauperis status “does not give the litigant a right to have
documents copied and returned to him at government expense”); Boring v. Kozakiewicz, 833 F.2d
468 (3d Cir. 1987) (upholding the district court’s denial of a civil plaintiff’s request for funds to pay
an expert medical witness and observing that neither 28 U.S.C. § 1915 nor any other authority
provides for such funding). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. (ECF No. 71.)
Plaintiff has requested blank subpoena forms for use in his case. (ECF No. 92.) Plaintiff’s
motion is granted, and the Clerk of Court is directed to provide Plaintiff with eight blank subpoena
forms so that the Plaintiff may complete them and return them to the Clerk of Court for review and
issuance, if proper, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the practice of this court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
August 22, 2011
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 2 of 2