Shell v. Otwell et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
ROBERT D. SHELL 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 4:22-cv-04053-SOH-BAB
JAIL ADMINISTRATOR STEVEN OTWELL;
LIEUTENANT GHORMLEY; NURSE PRACTITIONER
DARRELL WAYNE ELKIN; GUARD KATIE SHEETS;
GUARD JACKSON; and GUARD WILL 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Plaintiff, Robert D. Shell, originally filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on May 10,
2023 as Civil Number 6:23-cv-06058-SOH-CDC. 	(ECF No. 1). 	The Court then severed some
of Plaintiff’s claims into the instant case and ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint on
the same day. 	(ECF No. 2). 	Plaintiff was granted Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on May
24, 2023. 	(ECF No. 5). 	Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on May 23, 2022. 	(ECF No. 4).
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Compel. 	(ECF No. 39). 	Plaintiff has not responded
and the time to do so has passed.
I. 	BACKGROUND
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges, that while incarcerated in the Nevada County
Detention Center (“NCDC”), his constitutional rights were violated. 	(ECF No. 4). 	On
November 21, 2023, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Compel alleging Plaintiff refuses to
participate 	in 	discovery 	in 	this 	matter. 	(ECF 	No. 	39). 	Defendants 	attached 	all 	their
Case 4:23-cv-04053-SOH Document 43 Filed 12/21/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
communications with Plaintiff regarding discovery.
Defendants sent their first set of Interrogatories, including a medical authorization, to
Plaintiff on June 21, 2023. 	(ECF No. 39, p. 1). 	The Court entered a stay of discovery on June
23, 2023. 	(ECF No. 12).
On July 5, 2023, Defendants received Plaintiff’s signed medical authorization along with
a letter stating:
I object to being interrogated by the defense before or prior to any court proceedings. 	I
will see you in Court. 	I am including the HIPPA authorization forms included so that you
may obtain my medical records . . . All other interrogatories can be answered in court
proceedings or answers can be provided and evidence found in the grievances general
requests, and medical requests in the TurnKey kiosks, the Guardian, or jail camera
recordings or security videos.
(ECF No. 39-1, p. 1) (errors in original).
On August 10, 2023, the Court entered an Initial Scheduling Order reopening discovery in
this matter. 	(ECF No. 22).
On September 27, 2023, Defendants sent Plaintiff a letter and a copy of the previously
submitted First Set of Interrogatories and requested Plaintiff respond within thirty (30) days. 	On
October 3, 2023, Plaintiff responded to Defendants September 27, 2023 request stating:
I will not answer any questions outside of a court. 	Any further mail from you can and
should be sent to Mr. Ben Hooten . . . Mr. Hooten has been appointed to represent me in
these cases by Honorable Judge Christy Comstock. All grievances, general requests,
medical requests [and] records video, and audio recordings speak for themselves. 	Mr. Ben
Hooten, Attorney at Law, should be contacted for anything further to do with my cases.
(ECF No. 39-3).
On October 5, 2023, Defendants sent Plaintiff another letter requesting he respond to the
propounded Interrogatories, and attempting to clarify that Plaintiff proceeds pro se in this matter.
Defendants included a copy of the docket sheet and specifically noted:
Case 4:23-cv-04053-SOH Document 43 Filed 12/21/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
An attorney has not entered an appearance on your behalf nor has an attorney been
appointed to represent you in this case. 	As a pro se Plaintiff, you are required to comply
with the rules of the Court, including the rules of discovery. 	Please provide your
responses to the enclosed Interrogatories within the next 30 days.
(ECF No. 39-4, p. 1). 	Defendants also again sent the previously propounded Interrogatories. 	Id.
On October 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice on the docket in this matter. 	This Notice was
addressed 	to 	the 	Honorable 	Christy 	D. 	Comstock0F 1 	and 	complains 	about 	Defendants’
correspondence with the Interrogatories. 	(ECF No. 28). 	It is clear from this Notice, Plaintiff
believed on October 9, 2023, when he wrote this Notice, Ben Hooten was his court appointed
attorney for this case as well as Case Number 6:23-cv-06058-SOH-CDC.
On October 31, 2023, the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, the U.S. Magistrate assigned to
pretrial matters in this case, denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 	(ECF No.
30). 	Accordingly, Mr. Ben Hooten does not, nor has he ever, represented Plaintiff in this case.
This Order was mailed to Plaintiff on October 31, 2023, and it was not returned as undeliverable
mail.
Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ Motion to Compel to object or provide any further
explanation for his refusal to participate in discovery in this matter.
II. 	APPLICABLE LAW
The scope of discovery in a civil case is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26,
which provides in part:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering
the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
1 Judge Comstock is the U.S. Magistrate assigned to pretrial matters in Plaintiff’s civil case
number 6:23-cv-06058.
Case 4:23-cv-04053-SOH Document 43 Filed 12/21/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
parties’ 	relative 	access 	to 	relevant 	information, 	the 	parties’ 	resources, 	the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 	Information
within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be
discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
The burden is generally on the party resisting discovery to show why discovery should be
limited. 	Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Fine Home Managers, Inc., 2010 WL 2990118, at *1 (E.D. Mo.
July 27, 2010). 	In carrying this burden, the objecting party cannot rely on mere statements and
conclusions but must specifically show how the objected-to disclosures would be irrelevant or
overly burdensome, overly broad, or oppressive. 	See St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Comm.
Fin. Corp., 198 F.R.D. 508, 511-12 (N.D. Iowa 2000) (collecting cases).
III. 	DISCUSSION
In their Motion to Compel (ECF No. 39), Defendants request the Court compel Plaintiff to
answer his First Set of Interrogatories. 	Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion to Compel..
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 provides Plaintiff with thirty (30) days to respond to
Defendants First Set of Interrogatories. 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). 	While the Court appreciates
Plaintiff’s initial confusion regarding the appointment of counsel, he was provided adequate
information to dispel any confusion prior to Defendants’ Motion to Compel. 	First, on October 5,
2023, Defendants sent him a letter with a copy of the docket sheet evidencing he proceeded pro se
in this matter. 	(ECF No. 39-4, p. 1). 	Then the Court entered an Order denying Plaintiff
appointment of Counsel on October 31, 2023. 	(ECF No. 31). 	Yet, Plaintiff still failed to respond
to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories or request additional time to respond to said
Interrogatories. 	Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to respond in the time required by law.
Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to object to Defendants’ Motion to Compel, thus failing
Case 4:23-cv-04053-SOH Document 43 Filed 12/21/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
to carry his burden of showing why discovery should be limited. 	See Cincinnati, 2010 WL
2990118, at *1.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Compel (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED. 	Plaintiff is
directed to respond to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories no later than 5:00 p.m. on January
22, 2024.
Plaintiff is advised again, he proceeds pro se in this case, Civil No. 4:23-cv-04053-
SOH-BAB and Mr. Ben Hooton only represents him in his other case, Civil No. 6:23-cv-6058-
SOH-CDC. 	Accordingly, Plaintiff is responsible for participating in discovery with defendants
in this matter directly. 	Furthermore, Plaintiff is advised failure to comply with this Order may
subject this case to summary dismissal.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of December 2023.
s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:23-cv-04053-SOH Document 43 Filed 12/21/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>