Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

HARRY MICHAEL WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ

MORRIS YOUNG, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER

This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motions for Discovery and Defendant

Young’s Motion to Compel. (Doc. 31, 32, 33, 36, 37.) For the following reasons, the

Plaintiff’s Motions for Discovery are denied and Defendant Young’s Motion to Compel is

granted..

Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections. He

has filed a First Amended Complaint on the Court’s civil rights complaint form to be

used by prisoners for actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that prison officials

placed him with a dangerous inmate who subsequently beat him. (Doc. 9.) He also

alleges that prison medical staff was deliberately indifferent to the serious eye injuries

that resulted from the beating, and that because of such indifference, Plaintiff is now

blind in one eye. Two Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint. (Doc. 22.) 

This Court has issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the

complaint be dismissed as to Defendant Peterson but not as to Defendant Thompson. 

(Doc. 30.) As the Report and Recommendation has not yet been adopted, no

Case 4:10-cv-00474-RH-GRJ Document 39 Filed 07/18/12 Page 1 of 5
Page 2 of 5

scheduling order has yet been issued. The parties have begun discovery, however,

and the Court granted the Defendants leave to depose Plaintiff. (Doc. 27.) 

Defendant Young says that in addition to deposing Plaintiff, he also asked

Plaintiff to answer a set of interrogatories. These interrogatories first were mailed on

February 6, 2012, then hand-delivered on May 18, 2012. Defendant Young says that

he received Plaintiff’s responses on June 18, 2012, but that the responses were

incomplete. In particular, he says that Plaintiff claimed to have previously sent

documents that were not in fact sent, and claimed to have attached other documents

that were not in fact attached. On June 20, 2012, Defendant Young sent Plaintiff a

letter requesting that Plaintiff cure the deficiencies in his response, but Plaintiff did not

respond.

The Court finds that Defendant Young’s Motion to Compel is due to be granted,

and orders Plaintiff to provide full and complete responses to interrogatories nos 2, 6

and 13. Defendant Young also asks for attorney’s fees under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 37. Under Rule 37(a)(5)(A), the Court must order an award of attorney’s

fees to the prevailing party in a motion to compel. However, the Rule goes on to provide

that the Court “must not order” a payment of fees if “other circumstances make an

award of expenses unjust.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A)(iii). The Court finds that an award

of expenses would be unjust under these circumstances. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se,

and while his responses to the interrogatories were incomplete, it is evident that he

made a good faith effort to answer the questions and submitted the responses in a

timely manner. Given Plaintiff’s pro se status and his efforts at compliance, the Court

declines to make an award of fees.

Case No: 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ

Case 4:10-cv-00474-RH-GRJ Document 39 Filed 07/18/12 Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5

With respect to Plaintiff’s discovery motions, the Court construes these filings as

motions for issuance of subpoenas for the production of documents from the following

non-parties: Bay Walk-In Clinic, Calhoun Liberty Hospital, Liberty County Community

Health Center, Gulf County Health Department, Liberty Intermediate Care Facility,

Walker Memorial Hospital, Twin Oaks, Inc., Calhoun County EMS, Florida Community

Health Center, Gadsden County EMS, Seminole Youth Work Program, Regional Health

Services Director- Region I, Chief Health Services Officer, Northside Medical Center,

Gadsden County Health Department, Gulf Coast Medical Center Primary Care,

Highlands Regional Medical Center, Lawnwood Medical Center, and Lake Placid

Medical Center. 

Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, once a pro se litigant is in court, “he is

subject to the relevant laws and rules of the court, including the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff’s request

for the issuance of subpoenas to non-parties is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. A pro

se plaintiff may be entitled to the issuance of a subpoena commanding the production

of documents from non-parties upon Court approval. However, the Court will consider

granting such a request only if the documents sought from the non-party are not equally

available to Plaintiff and are not obtainable from Defendant through a request for

production of documents. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. Further, when a motion for the issuance of

a subpoena is brought in conjunction with discovery, the production sought by Plaintiff

must fall within the scope of proper discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), which

provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter

relevant to a party's claim or defense” or any relevant information “reasonably

Case No: 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ

Case 4:10-cv-00474-RH-GRJ Document 39 Filed 07/18/12 Page 3 of 5
Page 4 of 5

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

45(c)(1), the Court has an obligation to ensure that a requested subpoena would not

pose an undue burden or expense on the person responding to the subpoena. Plaintiff

also should be aware that because he has paid the filing fee and is not proceeding in

forma pauperis, he will be required to pay the costs of serving any subpoenas. 

Plaintiff wishes to serve subpoenas on nineteen different healthcare agencies

and providers. The motions for discovery Plaintiff has filed do not disclose what

records he is seeking from each non-party, or what relevance those records will have to

his claims. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s motion for issuance of

subpoenas should be denied. This ruling is made without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing a

request for issuance of subpoenas that details exactly what he is seeking from each

entity and how the subpoenaed documents will be relevant to the case. 

Plaintiff is also advised that to the extent he seeks his own medical records from

these non-parties, he may be able to obtain these records directly from the medical

providers without the issuance of a subpoena by providing a release or other written

request directly to the medical providers. Whether Plaintiff obtains these records

directly or through the service of subpoenas, in all likelihood the Plaintiff will be required

to prepay each medical provider for the reasonable costs of the copies. 

Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ORDERED:

(1) Defendant Young’s Motion to Compel, Doc. 32, is GRANTED. Plaintiff

must provide full and complete responses to interrogatories nos. 2, 6 and

13 by August 7, 2012.

(2) Plaintiff’s motions for issuance of subpoenas, Docs. 31, 33, 36, and 37,

Case No: 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ

Case 4:10-cv-00474-RH-GRJ Document 39 Filed 07/18/12 Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5

are DENIED without prejudice. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 18 day of July 2012. 

th 

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ

Case 4:10-cv-00474-RH-GRJ Document 39 Filed 07/18/12 Page 5 of 5