Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03067/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03067-6/pdf.json

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

---

Defendants have responded that some of Plaintiff’s Motions are written by a fellow 1

inmate, Michael Griffis. Plaintiff agrees that Mr. Griffis wrote out the Motion, but denies Mr. 

Griffis is representing him. The Plaintiff is reminded that prisoners can not bring claims on

behalf of other prisoners. Moreover, representation by any third-party who is not a licensed

attorney, is inappropriate and may subject this case to dismissal. See Martin v. Sargent, 780

F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1995). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

JAMES P. VICK PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-3067

C.E. “CHUCK” MEDFORD; 

LT. BETH REELY; SGT.

 ROB McGEE; OFFICER MARK

LOTT; OFFICER MICHAEL BROWN;

OFFICER DEBBIE DAVIS; 

OFFICER DAVE HENDERSON; 

OFFICER DISHEROON; DEPUTY

JOHN RAINS; DEPUTY GREG 

NOFSTGER; PORTIA STINES 

(formerly known as Portia Hill); LISA

ADAMS; DEBBIE PRICE; et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiff has initiated this Section 1983 action pro se and in forma pauperis. Now before the Court

are the Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel (Docs 93, 94, 96, 100 and 102). Defendants have responded to the

majority of Plaintiff’s Motions.1

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 93) seeks to compel answers to interrogatories from Defendant

Wintercorn. Plaintiff states that Defendant Wintercorn was given an extension of time by the Court for

answering discovery and that deadline has passed. While the Court did grant Defendant Wintercorn an

extension of time (See doc. 82), this extension was for answering the complaint, not for discovery. Plaintiff

should re-propound any discovery to Defendant Wintercorn he wishes to have answered. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 93) is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s next Motion to Compel (Doc. 94) seeks to compel more specific answers from Defendant

Case 3:06-cv-03067-JLH Document 114 Filed 10/03/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

Suchland to discovery. Plaintiff states that Defendant Suchland referred to a supervisor on many answers

to interrogatories and these answers were “evasive and incomplete.” Defendant Suchland’s supervisor is a

named Defendant in this action, and Plaintiff may re-propound these questions to the supervisor. Defendant

Suchland can not, and should not respond to questions that are beyond any personal knowledge.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 94) is DENIED.

Plaintiff filed another Motion to Compel (Doc. 96), which appears to be the same as Motion to

Compel, document 93. Accordingly, it is DENIED for the same reasons.

Plaintiff’s next Motion to Compel (Doc. 100) requested that Defendants be required to produce

documents that were objected to and produce correct documents, such as a “phone incident report” and not

a “jail incident report.” Defendants state they proffered all non-priviliged items to Plaintiff. Defendants did

not proffer suicide logs of other inmates due to privacy laws and other legal restraints. It appears

Defendants’ objections were well taken and they have produced the required documents in accordance with

the Federal rules of Civil Procedure. The Motion to Compel (Doc. 100) is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s final Motion to Compel (Doc. 102) requesting that Defendant Henderson be compelled

to answer discovery. This Motion was filed on July 19, 2007. Defendant Henderson was not served until

July 11, 2007. Thus the responses were not yet due and Plaintiff’s Motion is premature. (See doc. 83)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 102) is DENIED

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of October, 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03067-JLH Document 114 Filed 10/03/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>