Jones v. Taylor et al

Filing 33

ORDER striking 29 Motion for Leave to File; striking 31 Motion for Production of Documents; granting 32 Motion to Strike.(Signed by Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
FRANKLIN JONES,
Plaintiff,
VS.
BUCK TAYLOR, et al,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-428
§
§
§
§
ORDER

Following screening in this action, Defendants Maria Ramirez and Joe Hernandez
were dismissed, and Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force against Defendant Taylor was
retained (D.E. 12). Service of process was ordered and Defendant Taylor has filed his
answer (D.E. 11, 20).
Pending are Plaintiff’s motions (1) for leave to file a supplemental complaint (D.E.
29); and (2) and for production of documents (D.E. 31). Defendant Taylor moves to
strike Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint, or in the alternative to
deny the motion (D.E. 32).
Though Plaintiff’s pleadings contain a certificate of service, the certificate does
not comply with the rules. It is not sufficient that Plaintiff certify that he served a copy of
his pleading on the court; rather Plaintiff must certify that he served a copy of the
pleading on counsel for the Defendant. FED. R. CIV. P. 5(d)(1); LR5.3. Plaintiff failed to
do so. In addition, Plaintiff’s motion for production of documents is a discovery request,
and discovery requests are not filed with the court. LR5.4. Plaintiff must send his

1/2

discovery requests directly to counsel for the Defendant. If Plaintiff does not receive a
response within thirty (30) days, then Plaintiff may file with the court a motion to compel
discovery. FED. R. CIV. P. 37.
Accordingly, Defendant Taylor’s motion to strike (D.E. 32) is GRANTED, and
the Clerk is ordered to strike Plaintiff’s motions (D.E. 29, 31) for failure to comply with
the rules.
In the alternative Plaintiff’s motion for leave to supplement his complaint (D.E.
29) is DENIED. Defendants Hernandez and Ramirez were earlier dismissed from the
case, and Plaintiff has supplied no additional factual allegations that would support any
theory of liability.

As to Defendant Parker, Plaintiff has made only conclusory

allegations that Defendant Parker violated Plaintiff’s rights without alleging any facts that
would support a theory of liability. See Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., LLC, 234 F.3d
863, 872 (5th Cir. 2000) (leave to amend may be denied if futile).
ORDERED this 12th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________
B. JANICE ELLINGTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2/2