Filed: Mar. 05, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 05, 2020
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY , Chief District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Documents [Doc. 17]. Pro se Plaintiff Demirus Jerome Crawford is an inmate of the State of North Carolina currently incarcerated at Marion Correctional Institution in Marion, North Carolina. Plaintiff filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, which survived initial review as to Defendant FNU Abdleghafar. [Doc. 11]. Plaintiff now files a "Motion for Documents," which is in subs
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY , Chief District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Documents [Doc. 17]. Pro se Plaintiff Demirus Jerome Crawford is an inmate of the State of North Carolina currently incarcerated at Marion Correctional Institution in Marion, North Carolina. Plaintiff filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, which survived initial review as to Defendant FNU Abdleghafar. [Doc. 11]. Plaintiff now files a "Motion for Documents," which is in subst..
More
ORDER
FRANK D. WHITNEY, Chief District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Documents [Doc. 17].
Pro se Plaintiff Demirus Jerome Crawford is an inmate of the State of North Carolina currently incarcerated at Marion Correctional Institution in Marion, North Carolina. Plaintiff filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which survived initial review as to Defendant FNU Abdleghafar. [Doc. 11].
Plaintiff now files a "Motion for Documents," which is in substance a discovery request on Defendant. [Doc. 17]. Plaintiff has also filed a First Request for Interrogatories with the Court. [Doc. 18]. This is not the first time Plaintiff has improperly filed discovery requests with the Court. On November 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for documents [Doc. 9], which was denied [Doc. 10]. Plaintiff was advised as follows:
Plaintiff's Complaint has not survived initial review and the Court has not entered a Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan ("PTOCMP") in this case. As such, any requests for discovery are premature. If Plaintiff's Complaint survives initial review and once the Court has entered the PTOCMP in this case, the Plaintiff may serve discovery requests on Defendant(s).
The Plaintiff is advised that discovery requests should not be filed with the Court. Discovery materials should only be exchanged between the parties and only after the Court has entered the PTOCMP.
[Doc. 10 (emphasis added)].
There is still no PTOCMP entered in this case because Defendant has not answered or otherwise responded to Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendant's answer is not due until April 20, 2020. [Doc. 16]. Plaintiff's motion for documents is again improper and will be denied. The Plaintiff is strongly cautioned to carefully review all orders of this Court to avoid filing motions or other documents with the Court that are clearly improper. Plaintiff is again advised not to file discovery requests with the Court unless they are an exhibit to a properly filed motion to compel discovery from Defendant where the Defendant has failed to timely or fully respond to a discovery request.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Documents [Doc. 17] is DENIED and Plaintiff's First Request for Interrogatories [Doc. 18] shall be STRICKEN from the record in this matter.
