Christopher Adam Jackson v. Officer Seth Dickens, Deputy Chief David Allard, Chief Dean Bailey, and City of Beckley

Summary

This order addresses numerous pending motions in a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from alleged fabricated evidence and unlawful pretrial detention following a domestic-violence-related state-court proceeding. The court discusses, among other matters, requests for preservation and discovery, disqualification of defense counsel, protective relief, reconsideration, and motions to strike. The excerpt reflects denials of several motions as premature, unsupported, moot, or otherwise meritless.

Holdings

1. Discovery and related production, preservation, subpoena, and evidence-management relief is premature before the in forma pauperis action has undergone initial screening, the pleadings have closed, and the case has entered the discovery phase.
2. Plaintiff failed to establish a basis for disqualifying defense counsel because he did not show an actual concurrent conflict of interest, an attorney-client relationship that entitled him to object, or an actual or likely advocate-witness conflict.
3. A motion to reconsider an interlocutory order may not be used merely to relitigate issues, add facts that were previously available, or seek a different result from one already reached.
4. Plaintiff was not entitled to protective orders, in camera submission of a witness's identity, or sealing because he failed to establish the factual and legal prerequisites for those forms of relief.
5. A private plaintiff has no judicially cognizable interest in compelling the criminal investigation or prosecution of another person.

Questions Presented

1. Whether discovery, preservation, subpoena, protective-order, and evidence-production relief was premature before completion of § 1915(e)(2) screening, closure of the pleadings, and commencement of discovery.
2. Whether defense counsel should be disqualified based on alleged concurrent representation, a potential advocate-witness conflict, or alleged misuse of confidential materials.
3. Whether Plaintiff established grounds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) to reconsider the prior denial of leave to amend and related rulings.
4. Whether Plaintiff established grounds for sealing submissions, submitting a confidential witness's identity in camera, or obtaining a protective order.
5. Whether the parties' motions to strike, sanctions motions, requests for a scheduling conference, and request for a federal criminal investigation warranted relief.

Disposition

other