Cooks v. Oklahoma City Police Department et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DONALD EUGENE COOKS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. CIV-23-1178-R
)
OFFICER TYLER ARNEY, et al. 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Motion for Discovery [Doc. No. 38] requesting
that the Court hold a “discovery hearing” to determine if his constitutional rights were
violated.1
Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he must nevertheless follow the same rules
of procedure that govern other litigants. Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir.
1994). Plaintiff has not indicated that he sent any written discovery requests to Defendants
or that there is a discovery dispute necessitating court intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33,
34, 36. Moreover, discovery is inappropriate at this time as there is no indication the parties
have held the required discovery conference. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d) (“A party may not
seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule
26(f)….”).
1 The Court also notes that, although there are still claims pending against two defendants,
Plaintiff has filed an appeal [Doc. No. 33] of the Order of July 11, 2024 [Doc. No. 31]
dismissing certain claims without prejudice and dismissing the OCPD with prejudice
because it is not an entity capable of being sued.
Case 5:23-cv-01178-R Document 39 Filed 08/21/24 Page 1 of 2

2
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of August, 2024.
Case 5:23-cv-01178-R Document 39 Filed 08/21/24 Page 2 of 2