Kimble v. Swanton Police Department

• Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
• Decided: October 2, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-01810
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Marquis L. Kimble, Case No. 3:25-cv-1810

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

Swanton Police Department, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Marquis L. Kimble, who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, filed a motion to compel Defendants the Swanton Police Department and Swanton Mayor Neil Toeppe to respond to his discovery requests. (Doc. No. 4). But Kimble’s motion is premature. He submitted his complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (the “IFP” application) on August 28, 2025. (See Doc. Nos. 1 and 2). Kimble’s IFP application has not yet been ruled upon and, therefore, his complaint has not yet been deemed filed. See, e.g., Truitt v. Cnty. of Wayne, 148 F.3d 644, 647 (6th Cir. 1998) (“‘[A] complaint is filed when it along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis are presented to the clerk’s office and the clerk’s office takes possession of the complaint and the application is granted, notwithstanding the fact that the complaint is not formally stamped filed.’”) (quoting Dean v. Veterans Admin. Reg’l Office, 943 F.2d 667, 671 (6th Cir.1991), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 503 U.S. 902 (1992)) (emphasis by Truitt). Because his complaint has not yet been deemed filed, Defendants are not yet obligated to produce any discovery. Therefore, I deny Kimble’s motion to compel. (Doc. No. 4). Further, I order that Defendants may file a brief in reply in support of their motion to dismiss, if appropriate, on or before October 14, 2025. Any such reply will conclude briefing on this motion. No response to the reply may be filed. Finally, I hereby order that no additional documents, including but not limited to motions, shall be filed in this case until after I have issued a decision on Kimble’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. No. 2), and Defendants’ motions to dismiss. (Doc. No. 5). Any motion filed in

violation of this Order may be denied summarily as premature, and any other document may be stricken or disregarded.

So Ordered.

s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge