Nissen v. County of Sumner, Tennessee et al

Filing 171

ORDER denying 165 Motion to Compel; denying 166 Motion to Compel; denying 167 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 1/14/15. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(afs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JUSTIN DANIEL NISSEN,

)
)
Plaintiff
)
)
v.
)
)
COUNTY OF SUMNER, TENNESSEE;
)
SONYA TROUTT; SONNY WEATHERFORD; )
LT. DAVID FITCH; OFFICER DERICK )
CASE; OFFICER RONALD HOPKINS,
)
)
Defendants
)

No. 3:13-0842
Judge Trauger/Brown
Jury Demand

O R D E R
On January 8, 2015, the Defendant filed three motions.
Docket Entry 165 is a motion to compel prompt delivery of his mail;
Docket Entry 166 is a motion to compel a particular prescription
for antibiotics; and Docket Entry 167 is a motion to compel ice for
his back pain. The Defendants have responded to each of these
motions (Docket Entries 168, 169, and 170, respectively).
The motion to compel (Docket Entry 165) as such is
DENIED. The Defendants have explained why this particular court
order took several days to be delivered due to the Christmas
holidays.

It

does

not

appear

that

the

Plaintiff’s

mail

was

particularly singled out for delay, nor does it appear that the
reason for the delay will occur again. It further appears that the
Plaintiff did receive the court’s order through his mother, so it
does not appear that he has been prejudiced by the delay.
The Plaintiff did file a response (Docket Entry 152) to
the Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment (142). In the

motion to compel the Plaintiff does not seek permission to file
anything after December 29, 2014.
The remaining two motions to compel particular medical
treatment are DENIED for the reasons cited by the Defendants. These
are new allegations unrelated to the Plaintiff’s present charges,
and if Plaintiff wishes to file a new lawsuit involving these
matters, he needs to exhaust his grievances and file a new suit.
In the Magistrate Judge’s order of December 19, 2014
(Docket Entry 157) he addresses the Plaintiff’s motion to compel
the TBI investigation (Docket Entry 149), and pointed out in the
last paragraph that it was too late to add new allegations, and if
the Plaintiff believed he had a civil rights violation he would
need to file any appropriate grievance and a new case.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/ Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

2