Londarr Ward v. Primitivo Rodriguez, et al.

Summary

The court addresses three motions filed by incarcerated plaintiff Londarr Ward in an excessive-force action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court denies without prejudice his motion for a subpoena or to compel production from the Erie County Sheriff’s Office and his motion for appointed counsel. The court construes his motion to produce as a Rule 34 request and orders defendants to respond within 30 days.

Holdings

1. The federal court lacked jurisdiction to review Ward's FOIL claims and lacked a mechanism in this action to compel the nonparty Erie County Sheriff's Office or Erie County to respond to those requests.
2. Ward was not entitled to issuance of a subpoena or an order compelling the Erie County Sheriff's Office because he had not complied with Rule 45's procedural requirements and had not made a threshold showing that his broad requests satisfied Rule 26(b)(1)'s relevance and proportionality requirements.
3. Ward was not entitled to appointment of counsel at that stage because he failed to satisfy the threshold requirement of showing that his claims were likely to be of substance.
4. The court construed Ward's motion as a request for production of documents and electronically stored information under Rule 34 and ordered defendants to respond consistent with Rule 34(b)(2) within 30 days.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court could compel the Erie County Sheriff's Office, a nonparty, to respond to Ward's New York Freedom of Information Law requests.
2. Whether Ward had complied with the procedural requirements for issuance of a nonparty subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 and shown that the requested discovery satisfied Rule 26(b)(1)'s relevance and proportionality requirements.
3. Whether Ward demonstrated that appointment of counsel was warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), including the threshold requirement that his claims were likely to be of substance.
4. Whether Ward's motion should be construed as a request for production under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 and, if so, whether defendants should be ordered to respond.

Disposition

other