Harold v. Joshlin

• Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
• Decided: August 11, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00792
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SANCHEZ HAROLD CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-792

SGT. JORDAN JOSHLIN, ET AL. SECTION “M” (2)

ORDER AND REASONS

Plaintiff Sanchez Harold filed a Motion to Produce Documents (ECF No. 13) in connection with his pro se and in forma pauperis complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the conditions of his confinement. In the motion, Harold seeks an order compelling production of kiosk machine tickets, a logbook, video footage, medical records, and investigative reports from defendants. ECF No. 13 at 1-2. Harold’s request for an order compelling discovery is improper for several reasons. First, a party such as Harold is required to present discovery or production requests directly to the appropriate party or non-party in accordance with Rules 34 and/or 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before seeking a court order compelling production.1 The fact that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis does not entitle him to avoid the proper means or costs of discovery to obtain the items he seeks.2 In addition, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1), Harold also must establish or certify that he conferred or attempted to confer with defendants, any non-party, or their counsel before seeking the Court’s assistance with discovery, which he has not done.

1 Maloney v. St. Farm Fire & Cas., Co., No. 06-9183, 2008 WL 1850774, at * 2 (E.D. La. Feb. 20, 2015) (citing Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981)) (pro se litigants are not exempt from complying with the procedural and substantive rules of law). 2 See, e.g., Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 604-05 (M.D. Pa. 1991). The Badman case is informative where the court noted: “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were not intended to burden a non-party with a duty to suffer excessive or unusual expenses in order to comply with a subpoena duces tecum. That the court may order a discovering Furthermore, on July 10, 2025, I issued an order for service on defendants via the United States Marshal’s Service. ECF No. 11. As of the date of this order, no return on service on any defendant has been entered into the record. Therefore, no party has been served with summons or provided the opportunity to respond to Harold’s complaint, the factual allegations, or the substantive relief he seeks in the complaint and in this motion to compel. Thus, until service has been effected and defendants appear, discovery is premature and will not be allowed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Sanchez Harold’s Motion to Produce Documents (ECF No. 13) is DENIED as premature. New Orleans, Louisiana, this_ 11th day of August, 2025.

DONye CURRAULT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE