Buchanan v. Roberts

• Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
• Decided: June 27, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00074
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER BUCHANAN PLAINTIFF ADC #176655

v. No: 3:24-cv-00074-BRW-PSH

ROBERTS, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Plaintiff Christopher Buchanan’s motion to subpoena documents (Doc. No. 12) is denied without prejudice. Buchanan seeks to subpoena certain inspection reports from a third party. Before filing a motion to subpoena documents from a third party, Buchanan should first attempt to discover this information from the defendants. However, no defendants have been served in this case at this time. Once defendants are served and have answered, Buchanan should send his discovery requests directly to opposing counsel, along with a certificate of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (providing that Athe following discovery requests and responses must not be filed until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders filing: (i) depositions, (ii) interrogatories, (iii) requests for documents or to permit entry upon the land, and (iv) requests for admissions@); see also Local Rule 5.5(c)(2)(stating that A[a]ny party proceeding pro se shall be expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure@). In contrast, motions to compel and/or for sanctions, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, and any necessary attachments will be accepted for filing. Additionally, the Court routinely stays discovery that is not related to the exhaustion of administrative remedies until any motions related to exhaustion have been filed and decided. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires an inmate to exhaust prison grievance procedures before filing suit in federal court. See 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 202 (2007); Jones v. Norris, 310 F.3d 610, 612 (8th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion under the PLRA is mandatory. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. at 211. The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Because exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory, it serves judicial economy to stay discovery that is not related to exhaustion until any motions regarding exhaustion are decided. For this reason, discovery that is not related to the issue of exhaustion is stayed until further order. IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of June, 2024.

orem? ec