From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dixon v. Wilks

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION
Mar 14, 2012
C/A No.: 1:11-2378-CMC-SVH (D.S.C. Mar. 14, 2012)

Opinion

C/A No.: 1:11-2378-CMC-SVH

03-14-2012

Robert James Dixon, Plaintiff, v. Diane Wilks, Defendant.


ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights while incarcerated at Darlington County Detention Center. This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's Motion for Subpoenas [Entry #37] filed on March 13, 2012. Defendant filed a response on March 14, 2012. [Entry #38]. All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.).

Plaintiff's motion for subpoenas requests seven subpoenas in order to secure the presence of witnesses for Plaintiff. Although a subpoena is the proper method for compelling attendance of a witness at trial, Plaintiff has failed to provide the proper form or the necessary witness fees. There is no requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 that the court pay costs incurred with regard to a subpoena such as witness fees. See Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 604 (M.D. Pa. 1991) (inmates proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 are not entitled to have their discovery costs underwritten or waived); see also United States Marshals Serv. v. Means, 741 F.2d 1053, 1057 (8th Cir. 1984) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) does not require government payment of witness fees and costs for indigent plaintiffs in § 1983 suits); Johnson v. Hubbard, 698 F.2d 286, 288-91 & nn. 2-5 (6th Cir. 1983) (lower courts have no duty to pay fees to secure depositions in civil, non-habeas corpus cases), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 917 (1983). If Plaintiff wishes to obtain subpoenas, he may do so by contacting the Clerk of Court and providing the Clerk's office with a completed Form AO 88 (Subpoena in a Civil Case), together with the necessary witness fees. Plaintiff will have ample time to submit the same after a trial date is set. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for subpoenas [Entry #37] is denied at this time with leave to re-file after he has tendered a properly completed AO 88 form and the necessary witness fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED. March 14, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

_____________

Shiva V. Hodges

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Dixon v. Wilks

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION
Mar 14, 2012
C/A No.: 1:11-2378-CMC-SVH (D.S.C. Mar. 14, 2012)
Case details for

Dixon v. Wilks

Case Details

Full title:Robert James Dixon, Plaintiff, v. Diane Wilks, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION

Date published: Mar 14, 2012

Citations

C/A No.: 1:11-2378-CMC-SVH (D.S.C. Mar. 14, 2012)