United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
MICHAEL J. BOLICK, Plaintiff,
JOHN FAGAN, et al., Defendants.
STEPHEN HYLES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
pending before the Court are several letters filed by
Plaintiff which the Court construes as motions.
Plaintiff's motion to provide a current address for
Defendant Fagan (ECF No. 80) is denied. Plaintiff's
motion for request for production of documents from a
non-party (ECF No. 92) and motion for affidavits and
documents from non-parties (ECF No. 95) are denied, but the
Clerk is directed to forward Plaintiff's request for
affidavits (ECF No. 95) to the named witnesses.
Plaintiff's motion to exceed the standard interrogatories
and request for documents limits (ECF No. 98) is denied.
Plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF No. 89) is granted.
Motion to Provide a Current Address for Defendant
expresses concern that Defendant Fagan has not yet been
served and requests that the Court order Defendants'
attorney to “make known John Fagan's last known
address and phone no. so that the information can be turned
over to the U.S. Marshal's Office.” Mot. 1, ECF
No. 80. On June 6, 2017, the U.S. Marshal's Service
mailed Defendant Fagan a waiver of service packet (ECF No.
81). Defendant Fagan completed the waiver packet and mailed
it back to the U.S. Marshal's Service. Id. The
U.S. Marshal's Service received the waiver packet on July
10, 2017. Id. However, it was incorrectly completed,
and thus proper service was not perfected. Id. On
August 21, 2017, this Court directed the U.S. Marshal's
Service to personally serve Defendant Fagan. An attempt at
personal service is ongoing (ECF No. 105). The U.S.
Marshal's Service has sufficient information at this time
to attempt personal service, and Plaintiff's motion (ECF
No. 80) is denied.
Motions for Documents and Affidavits from
27, 2017, Plaintiff requested the Court order non-party
Georgia Department of Corrections to provide Plaintiff with
certain documents (ECF No. 92). Similarly, on July 31, 2017,
Plaintiff requested three subpoenas be issued to non-parties
(ECF No. 95)-Counselor Duttlinger, the Georgia Department of
Corrections, and Officer Teecha Dennis. While styled as a
request for subpoenas, Plaintiff actually requests affidavits
and the production of documents from the three non-parties.
Plaintiff is permitted to request that a non-party witness
execute an affidavit detailing his or her personal knowledge
of the incident. If Plaintiff cannot directly send a request
to the witness, he can forward the request to the Court and
the Court will send it to the witness. The Court thus directs
the Clerk to forward Plaintiff's requests (ECF No. 95) to
the identified individuals or entity at the address listed by
Plaintiff. The Court cannot, however, compel a non-party
witness to comply with any such request. The Court can only
use its subpoena power to compel the attendance of a witness
to give testimony at a deposition or trial.
cannot compel the production of documents by a non-party
through a request for production. Plaintiff can, however,
request documents from a party-such as the named Georgia
Department of Corrections officers-pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 34. Plaintiff can also seek any Georgia
public records through an Open Records Act request pursuant
to O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71. Alternatively, Plaintiff can
depose any witness as described in Rule 30 and require the
witness bring documents pursuant to Subsection 30(b)(2).
However, depositions cost money including the costs to record
the deposition and to transcribe the recorded testimony.
Though Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, he is not
entitled to have the costs of discovery covered by the Court
or the Defendants. See Easley v. Dep't of Corr.,
590 F.App'x 860, 868 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Tabron
v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 159 (3d Cir. 1993) (“There
is no provision in [§ 1915] for the payment by the
government of the costs of . . . litigation expenses, and no
other statute authorizes courts to commit federal monies for
payment of the necessary expenses in a civil suit brought by
an indigent litigant.”)). Therefore, although
proceeding IFP, Plaintiff is required to fund the expenses of
litigation like any other litigant.
motions (ECF Nos. 92, 95) are denied to the extent that the
Court cannot compel the non-parties' compliance with
Plaintiff's requests. However, the Clerk is directed to
mail Plaintiff's affidavit requests (ECF No. 95) to the
Motion to Exceed the Standard Discovery Limits
asks to have the standard interrogatories limit and request
for production of documents limit increased (ECF No. 98).
Plaintiff does not state the number of additional
interrogatories or requests he believes are necessary.
Further, Plaintiff does not state what additional discovery
he seeks or how that discovery would be relevant to his
claim. Plaintiff's motion is thus denied.
Motion to Amend
moves to amend his complaint to name John Doe Defendants. On
February 22, 2017, the Court directed Defendants'
attorney to “undertake a reasonable effort to determine
the names of the Doe Officers and provide the Court with
his/her findings.” Order & R. 2, ECF No. 48.