Earnest Barnard Clayton v. Jimmy Kellom, Captain or Unit Manager

S.D. Georgia

Earnest Barnard Clayton v. Jimmy Kellom, Captain or Unit Manager

DecidedNovember 25, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00009

StatusUnknown

This text of Earnest Barnard Clayton v. Jimmy Kellom, Captain or Unit Manager (Earnest Barnard Clayton v. Jimmy Kellom, Captain or Unit Manager) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Earnest Barnard Clayton v. Jimmy Kellom, Captain or Unit Manager, (S.D. Ga. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

DUBLIN DIVISION

EARNEST BARNARD CLAYTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV 325-009 ) JIMMY KELLOM, Captain or Unit Manager, ) ) Defendant. ) _________

O R D E R _________ Pursuant to the operative protective order, Defendant does not have to respond to any of Plaintiff’s motions unless ordered by the Court. (Doc. no. 57.) Currently before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff in which responses from Defendant are necessary. (Doc. nos. 53, 62.) The first motion is titled “Motion for an Order for Defendant Kellom [] to Provide [Plaintiff] Adequate Protect[ion], to Transfer Plaintiff [], to Provide the Court with the Entire Surveillance Camera (“Footage”) for September 30, 2025, of Dorm E-1 at Telefair [sic] State Prison, and for Defendant Kellom to Provide Security (“and Surveillance”) of [Plaintiff] at All Time[s] While at Telefair [sic] State Prison Booth and Building.”1 (Doc. no. 53). The Court construes this motion as a request for a preliminary injunction. See Torres v. Miami-Dade Cnty., Fla., 734 F. App’x 688, 691 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (explaining a court “must sometimes

1 Although titled as a motion to compel on the docket, the substance of the motion reveals it is a request for a preliminary injunction. (See doc. no. 53.) Plaintiff requests certain video footage, but this footage is connected to his requests for greater protection and a transfer. (See id.) look beyond the labels used in a pro se party’s [motion] and focus on the content and substance of the allegations”). The second motion is a request to propound a second set of interrogatories on Defendant.” (Doc. no. 62.) Upon consideration, the Court ORDERS Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, (doc. no. 53), and motion seeking permission to propound additional interrogatories, (doc. no. 62), by December 16, 2025. SO ORDERED this 25th day of November, 2025, at Augusta, Georgia.

BRIAN E. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

? The Court extends the discovery period by simultaneously entered Revised Scheduling Notice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

DUBLIN DIVISION

EARNEST BARNARD CLAYTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV 325-009 ) JIMMY KELLOM, Captain or Unit Manager, ) ) Defendant. ) _________

O R D E R _________ Pursuant to the operative protective order, Defendant does not have to respond to any of Plaintiff’s motions unless ordered by the Court. (Doc. no. 57.) Currently before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff in which responses from Defendant are necessary. (Doc. nos. 53, 62.) The first motion is titled “Motion for an Order for Defendant Kellom [] to Provide [Plaintiff] Adequate Protect[ion], to Transfer Plaintiff [], to Provide the Court with the Entire Surveillance Camera (“Footage”) for September 30, 2025, of Dorm E-1 at Telefair [sic] State Prison, and for Defendant Kellom to Provide Security (“and Surveillance”) of [Plaintiff] at All Time[s] While at Telefair [sic] State Prison Booth and Building.”1 (Doc. no. 53). The Court construes this motion as a request for a preliminary injunction. See Torres v. Miami-Dade Cnty., Fla., 734 F. App’x 688, 691 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (explaining a court “must sometimes

1 Although titled as a motion to compel on the docket, the substance of the motion reveals it is a request for a preliminary injunction. (See doc. no. 53.) Plaintiff requests certain video footage, but this footage is connected to his requests for greater protection and a transfer. (See id.) look beyond the labels used in a pro se party’s [motion] and focus on the content and substance of the allegations”). The second motion is a request to propound a second set of interrogatories on Defendant.” (Doc. no. 62.) Upon consideration, the Court ORDERS Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, (doc. no. 53), and motion seeking permission to propound additional interrogatories, (doc. no. 62), by December 16, 2025. SO ORDERED this 25th day of November, 2025, at Augusta, Georgia.

BRIAN E. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

? The Court extends the discovery period by simultaneously entered Revised Scheduling Notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Earnest Barnard Clayton v. Jimmy Kellom, Captain or Unit Manager, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earnest-barnard-clayton-v-jimmy-kellom-captain-or-unit-manager-gasd-2025.