Opinion
6:23-CV-0594 SEC P
06-29-2023
REGINALD JAMES JULIEN v. TERRY KROUT, ET AL
JUDGE DAVID C. JOSEPH
MEMORANDUM ORDER
David J. Ayo United States Magistrate Judge
Julien filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 on May 3, 2023, and subsequently filed four amended complaints. (Rec. Docs. 1, 4, 8, 9, 10). On June 22, 2023, the undersigned performed an initial review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and ordered plaintiff to amend his complaint to cure certain deficiencies. (Rec. Doc. 13).
On June 22, 2023, plaintiff filed several pro se motions: Motion of Discovery (Rec. Doc. 14); Motion of Hearing (Rec. Doc. 15); Motion of Scope of Evidentiary (Rec. Doc. 16); Motion to Subpoena (Rec. Doc. 17); Motion to Subpoena Witnesses (Rec. Doc. 18); and Motion for Speedy Trial (Rec. Doc. 19).
The issues raised in the Motion of Discovery (Rec. Doc. 14), Motion of Hearing (Rec. Doc. 15), Motion of Scope Evidentiary (Rec. Doc. 16), Motion to Subpoena (Rec. Doc. 17) and Motion to Subpoena Witnesses (Rec. Doc. 18) have either been addressed in this Court's denial of the previous Motion to Quash (Rec. Doc. 13), or are premature, as this matter remains under initial review.
With respect to the Motion for Speedy Trial (Rec. Doc. 19), any claim of a violation of the right to a speedy trial must be presented to the trial court and can be appealed only after a trial and a conviction. See Humphrey v. Bowles, 125 F.R.D. 657 (N.D. Tex., Nov. 1, 1988).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion of Discovery (Rec. Doc. 14), Motion of Hearing (Rec. Doc. 15), Motion for Scope of Evidentiary (Rec. Doc. 16), Motion to Subpoena (Rec. Doc. 17), Motion to Subpoena Witnesses (Rec. Doc. 18) and Motion for Speedy Trial (Rec. Doc. 19) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff is not to file any future motions until he complies with this Court's Order to amend his complaint. (Rec. Doc. 13).