Brockington v. Garcia

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TYRIQ BROCKINGTON,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-01575

v. (MEHALCHICK, M.J.)

C.O. GARCIA, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER This is a pro se civil rights action, initiated by the filing of a Complaint in this matter on September 1, 2020, by prisoner-Plaintiff Tyriq Brockington. (Doc. 1). On April 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed a letter which the Court liberally interprets as a request for the Court to send witness subpoenas to four named individuals. (Doc. 19, at 1). However, such a request is untimely and is not within the powers of the Court to grant. See United States v. Rigas, No. 4:05-CR-402, 2011 WL 7077329, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2011) (granting a motion to quash subpoenas, in part, because the court had yet to set a trial date and the request for subpoenas was premature); see also Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 243-44 (3d Cir. 2013). Judges must remain impartial and such impartiality is put at risk “when they provide trial assistance to [either] party.” See Mala, 704 F.3d at 244. Therefore, “pro se litigants do not have a right to general legal advice from judges” nor are judges required “to take over chores for a pro se [litigant] that would normally be attended to by trained counsel as a matter of course.” Mala, 704 F.3d, at 243-44 (quoting McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183-84 (1984)); see also Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004). Pro se litigants are afforded “flexibil[ity] when applying procedural rules” and are required to be informed when a court converts a motion to another form. See Mala, 704 F.3d at 244-45. Additionally, pro se litigants are provided lenience in the physical characteristics of their documents and their method of filing. M.D. Pa. LR 5.1; 5.6. Pro se litigants are not required to meet and confer regarding discovery matters, seek concurrence from an opposing party when filing a motion, or participate in

initial and pretrial conferences. M.D. Pa. LR 5.4; 7.1; 16.1. Pro se litigants may also apply for a volunteer attorney and to proceed in forma pauperis. M.D. Pa. LR 83.34.1; 4.7. Litigants proceeding in forma pauperis are permitted dispersed filing fee payments over time. M.D. Pa. LR 4.7. However, none of these circumstances are applicable to Plaintiff’s request “to send some papers to [his] witnesses.” (Doc. 19, at 1). As such, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request (Doc. 19) is DENIED as untimely and improper.

BY THE COURT:

Dated: June 23, 2021 s/ Karoline Mehalchick KAROLINE MEHALCHICK United States Magistrate Judge

- 2 -