Roberts et al v. State of Tennessee et al

Filing 210

ORDER: For the foregoing reasons Plaintiffs' motion to compel (Docket Entry No. 124) is DENIED. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 2/5/14. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(tmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
CHARLES H. ROBERTS, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff
v.
DERRICK D. SCHOFIELD, et al.,
Defendant

No. 3:11-1127
Judge Sharp/Bryant
Jury Demand

O R D E R
Plaintiff Roberts and Mudock, prisoners proceeding pro
se, have filed their motion to compel Steve Cantrell, identified as
the chaplain at Morgan County Correctional Complex, to produce a
complete list of all Jewish inmates within the custody of the
Tennessee Department of Corrections, as well as those who are on
probation

or

parole

or

who

have

discharged

their

sentences.

Plaintiffs state that they seek this list of names in order to
recruit such inmates as plaintiffs for a potential class action.
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel lacks merit for at least
three reasons. First, Local Rule 37.01, provides that any motion to
compel discovery shall quote verbatim each interrogatory or request
for production served upon adversary parties upon which the motion
to compel is based. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel fails to comply
with

this

requirement

and,

in

fact,

fails

to

show

that

the

information sought has been requested in discovery at all. For this
reason, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel must be denied. In addition,
the record fails to show that Chaplain Steve Cantrell, from whom
production of the subject list of names is requested, is a party to
this action. Requests for production of documents pursuant to Rule

34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply to
nonparties. For this additional reason, Plaintiffs’ motion to
compel directed to Chaplain Steve Cantrell lacks merit and must be
denied. Finally, the general rule is that a pro se prisoner may not
bring a class action concerning conditions of confinement at a
prison. Dean v. Blanchard, 865 F.2d 257, 1988 WL 130851 (6th Cir.
Dec. 8, 1988) (unpublished) (citing Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d
1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975)).
For the foregoing reasons Plaintiffs’ motion to compel
(Docket Entry No. 124) is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/ John S. Bryant
JOHN S. BRYANT
United States Magistrate Judge

2