Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01033/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01033-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 ______________________________

WILLIAM L. SULLIVAN, #157 996 *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:05-CV-1033-ID

(WO)

SIDNEY WILLIAMS, et al., *

Defendants. *

 __________________________________

ORDER ON MOTION

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to File a Subpoena Duces Tecum. (Doc. No.

81.) Attached to the motion is Plaintiff's proposed Civil Subpoena for Production of

Documents and/or Subpoena Duces Tecum. Plaintiff has also submitted a Motion to

Supplement [Proposed] Subpoena Duces Tecum Filing. (Doc. No. 82).

The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s proposed request for a subpoena duces tecum,

including his motion to supplement the proposed discovery request. In light of that review,

the undersigned concludes that the pending motion shall be denied. The documents

requested in Plaintiff’s proposed discovery request, as supplemented, are either cumulative

of information already provided by Defendants, irrelevant, and/or unnecessary to a

determination of the issue pending before this court. Furthermore, Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P., does

not condone fishing expeditions through agency files searching for documents which might

Case 2:05-cv-01033-MEF-WC Document 84 Filed 06/29/06 Page 1 of 2
The undersigned notes that court records, in general, are public records which are available for 1

inspection and/or copying upon request and such requests for copying and/or inspection may be made

through the appropriate court. 

2

confirm a party's information and/or belief, see Lesley v. Whetsel, 110 Fed. Appx. 851, 853

(10th Cir. 2004) or "where a plaintiff merely hopes to uncover some possible evidence of a

constitutional violation." Duffy v. Wolle, 123 F.3d 1026, 1041 (8th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff’s

1

proposed request for discovery, however, may be reconsidered if warranted by further

developments in this case.

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Subpoena Duces Tecum (Doc.

No. 81), is DENIED. It is further 

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement [Proposed] Subpoena Duces Tecum

Filing (Doc. No. 82) is DENIED.

Done this 29th day of June 2006.

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-01033-MEF-WC Document 84 Filed 06/29/06 Page 2 of 2