IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

TOVORIS GORDON, : : Plaintiff, : Case No.: 5:23-cv-00361-CAR-CHW : V. : : Proceedings Under

REGINALD CLARK, et al., : Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge : Defendants. : :

ORDER Plaintiff Tovoris Gordon, pro se, filed this suit pursuant to

, regarding his incarceration at Baldwin State Prison. (Doc. 1). All remaining Defendants have answered the complaint. (Docs. 36, 37, 47). Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to subpoena security and body camera video footage. (Doc. 53). For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. However, an extension of discovery is warranted so that Defense counsel may confer with the Georgia Department of Corrections and Defendants regarding the requested footage as directed below. Pro se litigants are entitled to reasonable access to the courts, but they are “subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Moon v. Newsome,

(11th Cir. 1989). “Courts do and should show a leniency to pro se litigants not enjoyed by those with the benefit of a legal education.” GJR Investments, Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, Fla.,

(11th Cir. 1998) (citing Powell v. Lennon,

(11th Cir. 1990)). However, “this leniency does not give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party.” GJR Investments, Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, Fla.,

(11th Cir. 1998).

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,

, * 1 (S.D.Ga., August 23, 2010) (citing Poole v. Lambert,

(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,

, *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.”

While video evidence of an incident involved in a lawsuit would certainly be within the scope of discovery, Plaintiff’s motion fails because he has not provided the information necessary to decide if his motion is appropriate. First, he has not provided a name or contact information concerning the alleged video footage, other than the incident date. The Court

cannot issue a third-party subpoena to an unknown person. But even if Plaintiff had provided this information, Plaintiff also failed to explain whether he attempted to seek the video footage from Defendants in the regular course of discovery. This is a necessary step to disclose; otherwise, the Court cannot decide whether a motion for subpoenas should be granted. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for subpoenas (Doc. 53) is DENIED at this time.

To avoid the unnecessary expense of serving third-party subpoenas at a later time, counsel for Defendants are DIRECTED to confer with the Defendants and with appropriate Georgia Department of Corrections staff to determine whether there were cameras (stationary, mounted, hand-held, or body-worn) in use during the alleged use of force incident on September 17, 2021, whether those cameras recorded the events alleged by Plaintiff, whether those recordings have been preserved, and the identity of the

custodian of those recordings. If the recordings have not been preserved, Defendants will be expected to explain in detail why the recordings have not been preserved. Although discovery has expired as to Defendants Clarkson and Weller, and Defendant Troutman’s discovery period is set to expire on September 1, 2024, discovery is REOPENED and EXTENDED as to all parties until October 1, 2024 by which time

Defendants’ counsel shall seek to obtain the video footage as directed. If Defendants are unable to obtain the video footage or evidence related to existence of such footage by that date, the Court will reconsider whether to issue any necessary third-party subpoenas to obtain the evidence. Unless further extended by the Court, dispositive motions will be due November 1, 2024.

SO ORDERED, this 30th day of August, 2024.

s/ Charles H. Weigle_________ Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge