CREDICO v. UNKNOWN SHERIFF HAMILTON COUNTY

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

JUSTIN CREDICO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:24-cv-01876-JPH-MJD ) UNKNOWN SHERIFF HAMILTON ) COUNTY, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) HAMILTON COUNTY SHERIFF, ) ) Interested Party. )

ORDER I. Discharging Order to Show Cause and Directing Further Proceedings The Court ordered Plaintiff Justin Credico to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case with prejudice as a sanction for his use of vulgar profanity and abusive, threatening language directed at the Court and opposing counsel. Dkt. 21. In his return to the show cause order, dkt. 22, Mr. Credico apologized and acknowledged that his conduct was unacceptable. Giving Mr. Credico the benefit of the doubt, the Court discharges the order to show cause and directs that the case will proceed as outlined in this Order. To be clear, if Mr. Credico uses such language in any other filings, the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice without further warning or notice. II. Adding Interested Party for Limited Discovery On January 17, 2025, the Court dismissed Mr. Credico's complaint because it did not identify any suable defendants. Dkt. 12. The Court allowed Mr. Credico until March 21, 2025 to conduct discovery to identify individuals who may be proper defendants to his claims and file an amended complaint. Id. The Court issued process to the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office ("HCSO") for the limited purpose of responding to that discovery. Id.

On January 31, 2025, HCSO filed a notice with the Court indicating that it responded to Mr. Credico's discovery requests. Dkt. 18. HCSO represents that it "did not employ anyone who was involved in Plaintiff's interaction with law enforcement on October 21, 2024," but "a different law enforcement agency, City of Fishers police department" may have been involved. Id. Mr. Credico now moves to conduct discovery on Fishers Police Department. That motion, dkt. [20], is granted to the following extent: a) The clerk is directed to update the docket to reflect that the Chief of the Fishers Police Department is now an interested party. b) Process shall issue to the Chief, in his official capacity only, for the purpose of permitting him to appear in the action and respond to discovery requests regarding the identities and locations of defendants. The Chief need not answer the complaint. c) The clerk is directed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) to issue process to the Chief in the manner specified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint (dkt. 1), the Court's show cause orders (dkts. 6, 10, 12, 21), HCSO's notice regarding discovery (dkt. 18), Mr. Credico's latest discovery motion (dkt. 20), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Order. d) Mr. Credico may serve discovery requests to the Chief for the limited purpose of identifying and locating defendants. e) The deadline for Mr. Credico to file an amended complaint is now extended to April 11, 2025 to account for the show-cause period. III. Resolving Other Pending Motions Mr. Credico's other motions for limited discovery relief, dkts. [17] and [19], are granted to the extent the Court has allowed Mr. Credico to conduct limited discovery on HCSO and the Fishers Police Department. To the extent Mr. Credico requests the issuance of subpoenas, the Court declines to do so at this time because he may utilize the discovery devices contained in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37 to obtain the information he seeks. See Acuity v. Kerstiens Home & Designs, Inc., No. 1:16- cv-02800-JMS-DLP, 2018 WL 3375015, at *1 (S.D. Ind. July 10, 2018) ("Even if the subpoena's request is relevant, the court can quash it if there is an easier way for the requesting party to obtain the information." (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i))). For example, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit him to: • Serve written questions (called interrogatories) on HCSO and Fishers Police Department, according to Rule 33.

• Request that HCSO and Fishers Police Department produce documents or electronically stored information in their possession, according to Rule 34.

• Request that HCSO and Fishers Police Department admit facts and other information, according to Rule 36. Thus, because he may use these Rules to obtain the information he seeks, his subpoena requests in dkts. [17], [19], and [20] are denied. He may renew his request for the issuance of subpoenas at a later time if he deems necessary. Mr. Credico's motion to reconsider, dkt. [14], is denied to the extent he asks the Court to conduct discovery on his behalf. Mr. Credico's motion for a temporary restraining order, dkt. 3, will be addressed by separate order. SO ORDERED. Date: 3/19/2025 Patrick Hanbor James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: JUSTIN CREDICO Homeless jmc31337@gmail.com Fishers Police Department 4 Municipal Drive Fishers, IN 46038 All electronically registered counsel