Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03040/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03040-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

MICHAEL S. GRIFFIS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-3040

 

SHERIFF CHUCK MEDFORD;

LT. BETH REELY; JIMMY

KEELAND; MICHAEL BROWN;

PETE MOSS; JACK GENTRY;

GEORGE JEFFREY; MARK LOTTA;

DR. THERESA FARROW; DR. 

DONALD CLAY; and SHELIA M.

HOWERTON

DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

On November 2, 2006, a motion to strike, or alternative objection to, interrogatories was

filed on behalf of the Carroll County Defendants (Doc. 65). In the motion, the Carroll County

defendants indicate they have received the following sets of interrogatories: (1) a set on August

7th consisting of 9 questions directed to all the defendants which they responded to on

September 8th; (2) a set on September 22, 2006, consisting of 10 interrogatories directed to

Sheriff Medford, 10 interrogatories to Rob McGee (not a named defendant), and 10

interrogatories to Judy Suchland (not a named defendant); (3) a set on September 28th consisting

of 30 interrogatories directed to Defendant Medford, 20 to Defendant Reely, 22 directed to

Defendant Lott, 23 directed to Defendant Brown, 5 directed to Ralph Gordon (not a named

defendant), 24 directed to Judy Suchland (not a named defendant), 14 to Defendant Howerton,

8 to Rob McGee (not a named defendant), and 9 to Defendant Keeland; (4) a set on October 11th

consisting of 15 interrogatories directed to Defendant Medford, 8 directed to Defendant

Case 3:05-cv-03040-JLH Document 69 Filed 11/14/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

Howerton, 7 directed to Defendant Lott, 8 directed to Defendant Brown, 6 directed to McGee

(not a named defendant), 6 directed to Defendant Reely, and 3 to Gordon (not a named party);

and (5) a set of interrogatories received on October 25th, 15 directed to Brandon Doe (not a

defendant), 25 to Debbie Davis (not a defendant) and Amanda Doe (not a defendant), and 7 to

Dave Henderson (not a defendant).

In the motion to strike, the Carroll County defendants note that plaintiff has exceeded the

permitted number of interrogatories to Defendants Medford, Lott and Reely. They ask that the

interrogatories be stricken as being non-compliant with Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Alternatively, they ask that plaintiff be required to reduce the number of

interrogatories propounded to any defendant to no more than 25.

The motion (Doc. 65) is granted. Defendants Medford, Lott, and Reely will not be

required to respond to the interrogatories served on them by the plaintiff. Instead, plaintiff is

directed to either submit a new set of interrogatories to Defendants Medford, Lott, and Reely not

exceeding twenty-five in number, including all discrete sub-parts, or identify for Defendants

Medford, Lott, and Reely, the twenty-five interrogatories of those he has propounded he desires

Defendants Medford, Lott, and Reely, to respond to. In doing so, plaintiff is reminded that he

has already propounded 9 interrogatories to the defendants and they have responded to those

interrogatories.

As defendants correctly note, JodySuchland, Debbie Davis, Rob McGee, Ralph Gordon,

Dave Henderson, Brandon Doe, and Amanda Doe are not defendants in this case. These

individuals were not included in the court’s order allowing the plaintiff to add defendants (Doc.

23) nor did the court’s order of service direct service on these individuals (Doc. 24). Further,

Case 3:05-cv-03040-JLH Document 69 Filed 11/14/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

plaintiff’s proposed amended complaints submitted with his motions to amend (Doc. 17 & Doc.

20) contained no substantive allegations against these individuals. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of November 2006.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03040-JLH Document 69 Filed 11/14/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>