Vinson v. U.S. Marshals Service

Full title: Wayne Vinson, Plaintiff, v. United States Marshals Service, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. South Carolina

Date published: Feb 8, 2011

C/A No. 0:10-79-RMG-PJG (D.S.C. Feb. 8, 2011)

Opinion

C/A No. 0:10-79-RMG-PJG.

February 8, 2011

ORDER

PAIGE GOSSETT, Magistrate Judge

The plaintiff, Wayne Vinson ("Vinson"), a self-represented federal prisoner, filed this action pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) DSC.

Vinson filed a motion in which he requested that the court issue subpoenas for his medical records from two separate facilities and the video camera recording from the transport van from the date of the incident. (ECF No. 32.) The court granted Vinson's motion by docket text order, and directed the Clerk of Court to provide Vinson with three blank subpoena forms for Vinson to complete and return to the Clerk of Court. (ECF No. 41.) Vinson returned six completed subpoena forms to the Clerk of Court addressed to the following entities: Irwin County Detention Center, U.S.P. Hazelton, Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center, FCI Talladega, United States Marshal Service, and the South Carolina Federal Clerk's Office.

It is hereby

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court issue the subpoenas addressed to the Irwin County Detention Center, U.S.P. Hazelton, Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center, and FCI Talladega. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall not issue the subpoena addressed to the United States Marshal Service, the defendant in this action. Vinson is advised that he does not need specific authorization from the court to obtain discovery from the defendant. Rather, he should direct his discovery requests to the counsel of record for the defendant. If Vinson is dissatisfied with the responses he receives from the defendant, he may then file a motion to compel. See Local Civil Rule 37.01 DSC. It is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall not issue the subpoena directed to the South Carolina Federal Clerk's Office. Vinson's request essentially seeks to have the Clerk of Court's Office perform legal research and accident reconstruction on his behalf. While Vinson may request and pay for copies of court filings directly from the Clerk of Court, the Clerk's Office cannot provide Vinson with other materials or perform research on his behalf.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 8, 2011

Columbia, South Carolina