DUKES v. WALTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
ALICIA ANN DUKES, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
: Case No. 3:25-cv-49-TES-CHW
v. 	:
:
WALTON COUNTY 	:
DETENTION CENTER, 	:
: Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant. 	: Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge
______________________________________
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion to request a subpoena (Doc. 22), in
which she requests that the Court issue a subpoena for Plaintiff’s medical records and to a
nurse who was on call at the hospital, presumably while Plaintiff was being treated for the
injury related to this case. Because Plaintiff’s request in insufficient, Plaintiff’s motion to
request a subpoena (Doc. 22) are DENIED.
Plaintiff Alicia Ann Dukes, pro se, filed this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
regarding her incarceration in the Walton County Detention Center. (Docs. 1, 6). Following
screening of Plaintiff’s complaint, claims against several defendants were allowed to
proceed for factual development. (Docs. 8, 12). Plaintiff’s claims relate to Defendants’
failure to adhere to Plaintiff’s “lower level” profile, which led to a December 31, 2023, fall
and injury while Plaintiff was incarcerated. (Id.) In her second request for subpoenas,
Plaintiff again asks the Court to issue a subpoena for her medical records and to a nurse
that would have witnessed Plaintiff’s conversation with several Defendants while in the
Case 3:25-cv-00049-TES-CHW Document 23 Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 3

2
hospital. (Doc. 22). While the discovery is ongoing, Plaintiff has not resolved any of the
deficiencies noted in her prior request for subpoenas.
In cases involving pro se litigants, particularly prisoner litigants, courts have a
responsibility to supervise the discovery process. Courts must pay special attention to the
use of the subpoena process to obtain third-party discovery under Rule 45. “A court
supervising prisoner pro so cases must prevent abuse of its subpoena power and, at the very
least, ensure that subpoenas are used for permissible purposes.” Keith v. Mayes, 2010 WL
3339041, * 1 (S.D.Ga., August 23, 2010) (citing Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1029
(11th Cir. 1987)). “A pro se plaintiff may be entitled to the issuance of a subpoena
commanding the production of documents from non-parties upon Court approval.” Wright
v. Young, 2012 WL 3024431, *1 (N.D.Fla., July 24, 2012). A request for the issuance of a
subpoena should be granted only if the request is within the proper scope of discovery and
“the documents sought are not equally available from [the defendant] through a request for
production of documents.” Id.
As previously acknowledged, Plaintiff’s medical records may be within the scope
of 	discovery. 	However, 	Plaintiff’s 	motion 	does 	not 	address 	whether 	she 	has 	sent
Defendants any discovery request, including requests for these records and information,
and, therefore, has not shown that these records are unavailable through the usual discovery
process. Additionally, the instant request, like the prior request, is insufficient in that
Plaintiff has failed to provide any information necessary to issue the requested subpoenas.
For example, she provides no name or contact information for any person or entity to which
the requested subpoenas would be issued other than a hospital name and presumably the
Case 3:25-cv-00049-TES-CHW Document 23 Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 3

3
name of a surgeon. The Court is not obligated to act as Plaintiff’s counsel to investigate or
otherwise discover this information and learn to whom a subpoena should be issued.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for a subpoena (Doc. 22) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 12th day of November, 2025.
s/ Charles H. Weigle
Charles H. Weigle
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00049-TES-CHW Document 23 Filed 11/12/25 Page 3 of 3