United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
WILLIAM W. CALDWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court are a series of motions, often repetitive, filed by
Plaintiff concerning discovery issues, the sealing of
documents, the appointment of an investigator and counsel.
DiPietro did not file a certificate of service in connection
with his motions. Defendants did not respond to
reasons that follow DiPietro's motions will be denied.
DiPietro, an inmate presently housed at SCI-Somerset in
Somerset, Pennsylvania, initiated this action on June 1,
2015. (ECF No. 1, Compl.) He filed an Amended Complaint on
April 18, 2016. (ECF No. 16, Am. Compl.) DiPietro alleges
that twelve Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC)
employees violated his First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights when they failed to protect him from the retaliatory
actions of DOC Special Investigations and Intelligence
Officer (OSI) Daniel Meinert who placed his life, and that of
his family, in danger by labeling him a snitch in an effort
to coerce him into becoming an informant. (Id.) In
retaliation for his refusal to cooperate, and his filing of
grievances complaining of OSI Meinert's actions, DiPietro
was subjected to harassing cell searches and prison
DiPietro's Failure to Comply with Federal and Local
Rules of Procedure
Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d) requires that a certificate of
service must be filed, along with a motion, “within a
reasonable time after service.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(d)(1).
Pennsylvania Middle District Local Rule 4.2 also requires
parties to file written proof of service of all motions. Pa.
M.D. LR 4.2.
has failed to include written documentation suggesting he
properly served defense counsel with any of the motions
addressed herein. Defendants have no obligation to respond to
motions they were not properly served with. On this basis
alone, DiPietro's motions will be denied without
prejudice to re-filing with a valid certificate of service.
Nonetheless, the Court will address the individual motions
Plaintiff's Second Motion for a Court Appointed
Investigator (ECF No. 96)
litigants are required to bear the costs associated with
their discovery efforts. “There is no provision in the
[in forma pauperis] statute for the payment by the
government of the costs of deposition transcripts, or any
other litigation expenses and no other statute authorizes
courts to commit federal monies for payment of the necessary
expenses in a civil suit brought by an indigent
litigant.” Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 159
(3d Cir. 1999).
in his second motion for a court-appointed investigator,
seeks assistance in obtaining copies of news articles that
were disseminated “nationwide” and prove OSI
Meinert placed his life in danger by “defaming his
character.” (ECF No. 96). As Plaintiff was previously
advised, in this civil-rights action he is responsible for
his own discovery and associated costs. Additionally, it
appears DiPietro's motion is moot as he now has a
“P.I.” (ECF No. 107, p. 2). Thus, DiPietro's
second motion for an investigator will be denied.
DiPietro's Motions to Seal Dockets and Court