Branham v. Bryant et al

Filing 66

ORDER denying 36 Motion for Subpoenas; denying as moot 40 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 5/30/2012.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
James M. Branham,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Sheriff Bruce M. Bryant, sued in his
individual capacity; John A. Clark,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:11-1246-JFA-SVH

ORDER

Plaintiff James M. Branham (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his
constitutional rights while he was a pretrial detainee being transferred to and incarcerated
at York County Detention Center (“YCDC”). Before the court are the following motions:
(1) Plaintiff’s motion for subpoenas [Entry #36]; and (2) Defendants’ motion to quash
subpoenas and for protective order [Entry #40]. All pretrial proceedings in this case were
referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.).
I.

Factual Background
Plaintiff alleges that while being transported from the Cherokee County Detention

Center in Georgia to YCDC on July 17, 2009, his leg restraints were too tight and caused
him severe pain and injuries. [Entry #1 at 3]. He further alleges that despite repeated
requests, the transporting officer did not loosen the restraints and that the YCDC did not
provide him with sufficient medical care. Id. at 3–4. He seeks compensatory damages
for the alleged physical and emotional injuries he claims to have sustained during the

transport and for Defendants’ alleged failure to provide adequate medical care. Id. at 5.
He also seeks punitive damages. Id.
II.

Discussion
A.

Motion for Subpoenas

On December 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed with the court eleven subpoenas he had
signed. [Entry #36]. The Clerk of Court docketed Plaintiff’s filing as a motion for
subpoenas. Eight of the subpoenas are directed to defendant Sheriff Bruce M. Bryant,
two are directed to Plaintiff’s medical providers, and one is directed to Smith and
Wesson, Inc.1
The subpoenas signed by Plaintiff are not valid. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45,
the clerk of court or an attorney acting as an officer of the court may issue a subpoena.
Pro se parties may not issue subpoenas themselves. Plaintiff failed to file a motion
seeking the issuance of his subpoenas and did not attempt to demonstrate why the
proffered subpoenas should be issued. Even if Plaintiff had properly filed a motion, the
discovery period in this case ended prior to Plaintiff’s filing with the court.
Consequently, Plaintiff’s motion for subpoenas [Entry #36] is denied.
B.

Motion to Quash Subpoenas and for Protective Order

In response to Plaintiff’s motion for subpoenas, Defendants filed a motion to
quash and for protective order. [Entry #40]. In light of the foregoing finding that
Plaintiff’s subpoenas are invalid, Defendants’ motion is denied as moot.

1

The subpoena directed to Smith and Wesson, Inc. seeks documents having to do
with “retention of germs on Handcuffs/Legshackles and the proper cleaning of
Handcuffs/Legshackles and the sanitizing.” [Entry #36 at 10].
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 30, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

3