Butcher v. Martin et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
JOHN R. BUTCHER 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 1:23-cv-01077-SOH-BAB
SHERIFF LEROY MARTIN, et. al. 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s three untimely
filed discovery motions. (ECF Nos. 62, 63, 64).
Plaintiff filed his Original Complaint on July 28, 2023. (ECF No. 1). He filed his Amended
Complaint on August 31, 2023. (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is centered on his
incarceration in the Columbia County Detention Center (“CCDC”). Plaintiff alleges that he was
denied medication prescribed by his free-world physician. (Id. at 6-7). 	He also alleges various
issues with the conditions of confinement at the facility. 	(Id. at 9). 	Plaintiff is currently
incarcerated in the Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”).
The Initial Scheduling Order in this case was entered on December 13, 2023. (ECF No.
34). 	The discovery deadline was set for April 10, 2024. 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff filed his current three
discovery motions on June 27, 2024. (ECF Nos. 62, 63, 64). All were submitted long past the
deadline for discovery requests in this case and may be denied on this basis alone.
Additionally, in these motions Plaintiff requests discovery that was either already covered
under a subpoena or that he is not entitled to receive under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
His first Motion is entitled “Second Motion to Compel Motion for Request for Discovery.” (ECF
Case 1:23-cv-01077-SOH-BAB Document 70 Filed 07/11/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
No. 62). 	In it, he requests a copy of Defendant Elkins’ medical license, stating he requested it
from the Arkansas State Medical Boards for physicians and nurses and was denied because he is
an inmate. (Id. at 4, 8). He further states he asked for this discovery from Defendants repeatedly
and was denied. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff argues he needs this evidence to show that Defendant Elkins
was a registered nurse practitioner, not a doctor, and as such must work under the direct supervision
of a doctor. (Id. at 7). Plaintiff attached copies of interrogatory responses which clearly identify
Defendant Elkins’ licensure as that of an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse or APN. Plaintiff
does not need an actual physical copy of Defendant Elkins’ APN license to support his point that
Elkins is not a doctor. 	Plaintiff is not entitled to cumulative or duplicative information under
Federal Rule of Procedure 26.
Plaintiff makes the same request for the medical license of Defendant Elkins in his third
discovery motion, entitled "Motion to Compel Discovery and to Compel Subpoena for Copies of
Medical License, Sanctions, against the following Doctor’s as Evidence for the Arkansas State
Medical Board and Nursing Board for Hearing.” (ECF No. 64). Additionally, he seeks the medical
licenses and evidence of sanctions against at least 8 other medical providers who are not named as
Defendants in this case, and are not identified as practicing at either CCDC or ADC. Plaintiff does
not state why he requests this evidence for this case, other than to state he wants to “show they are
at least medical doctors.” (Id. at 3). Plaintiff has not indicated how this information is relevant,
and it does not appear that the majority of this information is in the possession, custody or control
of the named Defendants. Plaintiff has not shown he is entitled to this discovery under Federal
Rule of Procedure 26.
Plaintiff’s second discovery motion is entitled “Motion to Compel Discovery and Compel
Subpoena for Pictures of Plaintiff’s Wounds from Surgery of his Spinal Cyst in EOMIS.” (ECF
Case 1:23-cv-01077-SOH-BAB Document 70 Filed 07/11/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
No. 63). Plaintiff was granted a subpoena for copies of his medical records at the ADC, where he
was transferred after his incarceration in the CCDC, on April 26, 2024. 	(ECF No. 58). 	This
subpoena requested all records for his medical care and treatment between September 2023
through November 2023. 	(Id.). 	These medical records were submitted to the Court on May 7,
2024, and the records were mailed to Plaintiff on May 8, 2024. (ECF No. 61). The Court notes
that the ADC response contained 592 pages of information concerning Plaintiff’s medical care.
(ECF No. 61-1). Plaintiff now states that there should have been certain color photographs taken
by medical staff on their phone and submitted into the ADC EOMIS medical system, but he has
not received them. (ECF No. 63 at 3). He asks the Court to subpoena these color photographs.
(Id.). The ADC has promptly responded to the Court’s subpoena and provided a voluminous body
of medical documentation concerning Plaintiff’s medical care. If the photographs had been in the
ADC system, they would have been provided. Plaintiff is not entitled to a second subpoena for
records from the ADC.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s three discovery Motions (ECF Nos. 62, 63, 64) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of July 2024.
/s/ 	Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-01077-SOH-BAB Document 70 Filed 07/11/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>