UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

TIMOTHY BARNES, Case No. 2:25-cv-12680

Plaintiff, Mark A. Goldsmith United States District Judge v. Patricia T. Morris OBIAKOR and PARR-MIRZA, United States Magistrate Judge

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER RESOLVING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF No. 16) AND DEFENDANT OBIAKOR’S MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF No. 21)

I. Introduction This is a prisoner civil rights case under

. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, alleges that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights. (ECF No. 1). Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 16) and Defendant Obiakor’s motion to compel discovery responses (ECF No. 21). This Order will resolve both motions. II. Discussion On October 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time, explaining that when the Court denied his motion for the appointment of counsel on October 15, 2025 (ECF No. 15), it left him only one day to “properly answer the Defendant’s pleadings for Interrogatories and Discovery . . . and to reply to

Defendant’s answer to his Complaint. (Id. at PageID.50). A week later, Obiakor filed a motion to compel discovery responses, asserting that Plaintiff had failed to properly respond to a set of discovery requests served on September 18, 2025, and

also refused to sign an authorization for the release of his medical records. (ECF No. 21). Both of these motions stem from Obiakor sending discovery requests in the absence of a scheduling order. “In pro se prisoner civil litigation, such as this case,

discovery typically commences upon issuance of a scheduling order setting discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.” Brown v. Snyder, No. 19-11325,

, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 29, 2020). Generally, this Court waits until all

defendants have been served before entering a scheduling order. In this case, Defendant Parr-Mirza’s waiver of service was not docketed until September 22, 2025 (ECF No. 12), and counsel did not appear on Parr-Mirza’s behalf until October 30, 2025 (ECF No. 17). Put simply, Obiakor’s discovery requests were premature.

Parr-Mirza has filed a dispositive motion in response to the complaint (ECF No. 19) and the Court intends to address that motion before entering a scheduling order. No discovery should be exchanged until a scheduling order is entered. An

exception will be made for compelling Plaintiff to sign an authorization for the release of his medical records. Courts routinely grant motions to compel prisoner- plaintiffs to sign such authorizations when they bring claims related to the medical

care they received (or perhaps, did not receive) while incarcerated. See, e.g., Arnold v. Hutchison, No. 16-cv-13403,

, at *2 (E.D. Mich. May 3, 2017); Davis v. Caruso, No. 07-cv-11740,

, at * 5 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31,

2009); Tolson v. Washburn, No. 3:19-cv-00175,

, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 24, 2021); Sleighter v. Kent Cnty. Jail Admin., No. 1:12–cv–763,

, at *5 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 20, 2013). Finally, it is unnecessary to give Plaintiff extra time to file a reply to Obiakor’s answer to the complaint because it is

not common practice in this Court to allow plaintiffs to file replies to answers to their complaints. III. Conclusion

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 16) and Obiakor’s motion to compel discovery responses (ECF No. 21) are hereby deemed RESOLVED. Obiakor shall send Plaintiff a new authorization for the release of his medical

records within five days of entry of this Order. Plaintiff must sign the authorization and mail it back to Obiakor within ten days of its receipt. Obiakor may file a renewed motion to compel if he does not receive a signed authorization by the end

of the month. Plaintiff is reminded that his response to Parr-Mirza’s motion is due by November 20, 2025.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: November 10, 2025 s/PATRICIA T. MORRIS Patricia T. Morris United States Magistrate Judge