Haygood v. West Columbia Police Dept et al
Filing
38
ORDER granting 26 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint, denying 28 MOTION for issuance of Subpoena, denying 29 MOTION for issuance of Subpoena, denying 30 MOTION for issuance of Subpoena, denying 31 MOT ION for Transcript, and denying 34 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Plaintiff's deadline for responding to Defendants' motion for summary judgment remains April 2, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 3/3/2015. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Vernon Lee Haygood,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
West Columbia Police Department, John )
King, William Norris, and Officer
)
Cubelli,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
C/A No.: 3:14-3886-TLW-SVH
ORDER
Vernon Lee Haygood (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional
rights by the West Columbia Police Department, John King, William Norris, and Officer
Cubelli (“Defendants”). All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the
undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civ. Rule
73.02(B)(2)(f) (D.S.C.). This matter comes before the court on the following motions of
Plaintiff: (1) motion to amend the complaint [ECF No. 26]; (2) motions for a subpoena
[ECF Nos. 28, 29, 30]; (3) motion for a transcript [ECF No. 31]; and (4) motion for an
extension of time to complete discovery [ECF No. 34].
I.
Motion to Amend the Complaint
Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to change “West Columbia Police
Department” to “City of West Columbia.” [ECF No. 26]. Defendants indicate that they
do not oppose the clarification in the name. [ECF No. 33 at n 1]. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
motion is granted to the extent that he seeks to correct the name of this defendant and the
Clerk of Court is directed to amend the docket to reflect this change. No amended
complaint or answer need be filed.
II.
Motions for Subpoenas
Plaintiff first requests a subpoena that appears to be directed to Defendants and
requests a copy of his inmate records. The proper procedure for requesting documents
from parties to a case is through Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, and not through the use of a
subpoena. Further, discovery requests to parties should be served on opposing counsel
and should not be filed with the court. Therefore, the undersigned denies Plaintiff’s
request for a subpoena for his inmate records as improper.
Plaintiff also requests a subpoena be issued to Dr. Gordon Bobbett and Mrs. Janice
Lattrice McCoy Haygood. [ECF Nos. 29, 30]. The subpoena to Dr. Bobbett does not
specify what Plaintiff seeks from him. The subpoena to Ms. Haygood requests her
presence, but fails to specify a place, date, or time. Although a subpoena is the proper
method for compelling attendance of a witness at trial, there are currently no hearings
scheduled in this case. Further, Plaintiff has failed to provide the necessary witness fees,
and there is no requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 that the court pay costs incurred with
regard to a subpoena such as witness fees. See Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 604
(M.D. Pa. 1991) (inmates proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 are not entitled to have
their discovery costs underwritten or waived); see also Nance v. King, No. 88-7286, 1989
WL 126533, at *1 (4th Cir. Oct. 18, 1989) (unpublished opinion); United States Marshals
Serv. v. Means, 741 F.2d 1053, 1057 (8th Cir. 1984) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c)
2
does not require government payment of witness fees and costs for indigent plaintiffs in §
1983 suits); Johnson v. Hubbard, 698 F.2d 286, 288–91 & nn. 2–5 (6th Cir. 1983) (lower
courts have no duty to pay fees to secure depositions in civil, non-habeas corpus cases),
cert. denied, 464 U.S. 917 (1983). There are costs associated with subpoenas for
documents as well, such as the cost of the copies and the cost of serving the subpoenas.
Therefore, because Plaintiff failed to specify what he seeks or tender the necessary fees
for the subpoenas, Plaintiff’s motions for subpoenas to Dr. Bobbett and Ms. Haygood
[ECF No. 29, 30] are denied. If this case proceeds to trial, Plaintiff may seek leave to
subpoena Dr. Bobbett and Ms. Haygood to testify after he has tendered the necessary
witness fees and costs of service.
III.
Motion for Transcript
Plaintiff’s motion for a transcript appears to request the transcript of a hearing in
West Columbia Municipal Court. [ECF No. 31]. Plaintiff should request the transcript
directly from West Columbia Municipal Court. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to have the
court pay for the transcript, his motion is denied.
IV.
Motion for an Extension to the Discovery Deadline
Pursuant to the court’s scheduling order in this case, the deadline for the
completion of discovery expired on January 26, 2015, and dispositive motions were due
by February 24, 2015. [ECF No. 22]. On February 24, 2015, Defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment, and Plaintiff filed a motion requesting additional time to conduct
discovery. [ECF No. 34]. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension to the discovery deadline is
untimely, as it comes a month after the discovery deadline expired. Further, Defendants
3
would be prejudiced by an extension, particularly in light of the fact that they have filed a
motion for summary judgment. For these reasons, the court denies Plaintiff’s motion to
extend discovery.
V.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion to amend the
complaint [ECF No. 26] and denies Plaintiff’s motions for a subpoena [ECF Nos. 28, 29,
30], motion for a transcript [ECF No. 31], and motion for an extension of time to
complete discovery [ECF No. 34]. Plaintiff’s deadline for responding to Defendants’
motion for summary judgment remains April 2, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 3, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?