Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BURTON v. HOSKINS, 1:10CV165 SNLJ. (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri Number: infdco20130625a67 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 24, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 24, 2013
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, Jr., District Judge. This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of Summonses (#68) and Motion for Leave to File Additional Written Interrogatories (#64). Defendants have not responded to either motion, and the time for doing so has passed. I. Motion for Issuance of Summonses (#68) Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on April 22, 2013. In that amended complaint, plaintiff named four defendants who had not already been served
More

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, Jr., District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of Summonses (#68) and Motion for Leave to File Additional Written Interrogatories (#64). Defendants have not responded to either motion, and the time for doing so has passed.

I. Motion for Issuance of Summonses (#68)

Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on April 22, 2013. In that amended complaint, plaintiff named four defendants who had not already been served with process in this case: Tammi Martinez, Felicia Dodge, Heather Annesser, and Amanda Hill. However, defendants Dodge, Annesser, and Hill had been previously dismissed without prejudice by this Court for plaintiff's failure to serve them with process. (See Orders, Documents #28 and #62.) Plaintiff may not now add them back to this matter by re-naming them as defendants in this matter.

As for plaintiff's addition of defendant Tammi Martinez, plaintiff's claims survive review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and the clerk shall be directed to issue process or cause process to be issued on that defendant.

II. Motion for Leave to File Additional Written Interrogatories (#64)

Next, on April 22, 2013, plaintiff sought leave to serve additional written interrogatories on defendants. In the Court's April 2, 2013 memorandum and order (#62), the plaintiff was given until April 23, 2013 by which to serve his last set of interrogatories on defendants. It appears the plaintiff filed these interrogatories in error, as discovery requests are not filed with the Court. Defendants have apparently been served with the interrogatories. The motion is denied as moot.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of Summonses (#68) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall shall issue process or cause process to be issued on defendant Tammi Martinez;

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Additional Written Interrogatories (#64) is DENIED as moot.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer