Holcomb v. Kindley et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 18 motion to compel and 19 , 20 motions for the issuance of subpoenas. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 8/1/2016. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Dean Alton Holcomb, #154215-0930,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Lieutenant Jeff Kindley and 2 Unknown
SLED Agents,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:16-672-MGL-SVH

ORDER

Plaintiff Rabbi Dean Alton Holcomb, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is
a pretrial detainee incarcerated at the Greenville County Detention Center (“GCDC”) in
Greenville, South Carolina. He filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
that Lieutenant Jeff Kindley and 2 unknown SLED agents (“Defendants”) violated his
constitutional rights. This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to compel [ECF
No. 18] and motions for subpoenas [ECF Nos. 19, 20]. This matter was referred to the
undersigned for all pretrial proceedings pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.).
I.

Motion to Compel
Plaintiff requests the court compel GCDC staff to allow him to use a multi-

purpose room for depositions of Defendants and witnesses, allow his family or friends to
be able to provide digital recorders, to provide a notary public to swear in the witnesses,
and for Plaintiff to be permitted to access the recordings on GCDC computers. Plaintiff
has not shown that he has a court reporter or appropriate officer before whom such a

deposition can take place pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(5). Therefore, Plaintiff’s
motion to compel is denied.
II.

Motions for Subpoenas
Plaintiff seeks to subpoena the Spartanburg County Solicitor’s Office and GCDC

for recordings of all of his phone calls between December 15, 2015, and February 1,
2016. Defendants’ response indicates that providing this information to Plaintiff would
interfere with his pending criminal proceedings. [ECF No. 22]. In his reply, Plaintiff
argues that his criminal defense attorney has not helped him or contacted him. [ECF No.
24]. Plaintiff does not provide in any of his filings why the items he seeks to subpoena
are relevant or necessary in the instant case. Further, Plaintiff does not indicate that he
can supply the funds necessary to obtain the items he seeks. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
motions for subpoenas are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 1, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2