The opinion of the court was delivered by: Terence P. Kemp United States Magistrate Judge
This prisoner civil rights case is before the Court on pro se plaintiff, Daniel L. Rittner's, motion for leave to file reduced copies, motion for discovery, motion for order to allow plaintiff to supplement or amend complaint when funds become available, motion to enlarge time in all pleadings, motion to find e-mail sufficient for service, motion to order discovery conference, motion to order plaintiff to receive file-stamped copies of all pleadings, motion to appoint officer to take depositions, motion to attach and seizure of property, motion to amend summons and to serve by publication, and motion to order alternative service by United States Marshal. Further, before the Court is defendant Jeffrey Wolfe's motion to strike plaintiff's response to defendant's answer. For the following reasons, all of Mr. Rittner's motions will be denied. Mr. Wolfe's motion will be granted.
Motion for Leave to File Reduced Copies (doc. #5)*fn1 In this motion, Mr. Rittner requests leave to file a reduced number of copies of the pleadings in this case. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in conjunction with the Court's local rules, do not require a requisite number of copies of the pleadings to be filed. In this pro se prisoner civil rights case, only one copy of a pleading is required to be sent to the Clerk's office so that the pleading can be posted on the electronic docket.
Motion for Discovery (doc. #6)/Motion to Order Discovery Conference (doc. #21)
Mr. Rittner requests the Court to order Mr. Thrower's counsel to provide addresses so that Mr. Rittner can effectuate service under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4. It appears that discovery in this case is open, and Mr. Rittner may seek discovery from the defendants in this case by sending the defendants a request for discovery. Given the particular request in the motion for discovery, Mr. Rittner may send the defendants a discovery request to obtain all necessary and requisite addresses relevant to this case. If defendants fail to respond to this request, then Mr. Rittner may move to compel discovery.
Further, because Mr. Rittner is a plaintiff without counsel and a person in custody of the United States, a state, or a state subdivision, the Court will not grant Mr. Rittner's request for a discovery conference. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(E)(iii) and 26(f). If Mr. Rittner requests discovery, and if the defendants do not comply with that request, and extra-judicial means of obtaining the requested discovery are exhausted, then the Court will, upon a party's motion, consider a request for a discovery conference. However, because the current motion is solely a request for a general discovery conference pursuant to Rule 26(f) and not a request for a discovery conference to obtain specific discovery allegedly being withheld from Mr. Rittner, this motion is denied.
Motion to Enlarge Time in All Pleadings (doc. #8) Mr. Rittner requests the Court to grant a general extension of time for all pleadings. Motions for an extension of time to file motions or pleadings will be evaluated and determined on a case-by- case basis. If Mr. Rittner requests an extension of time to file a motion or respond to a particular motion or Order, then Mr. Rittner may file a motion for an extension of time. The Court will not grant general motions for an extension of time.
(doc. #9)/Motion to Amend Summons and To Serve By Publication (doc. #24)
Mr. Rittner requests the Court to allow Mr. Rittner to use Mr. Thrower's personal e-mail account for service of process in this case. Using an e-mail to perfect service of process, in this situation, is insufficient under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and 5.
Further, Mr. Rittner requests that the Court allow him to serve Mr. Thrower by publication under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure 4.4. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(1). According to Ohio Rule 4.4, however, a party requesting service by publication must file an affidavit with the Court indicating "that service of summons cannot be made because the residence of the defendant is unknown to the affiant, all of the efforts made on behalf of the party to ascertain the residence of the defendant, and that the residence of the defendant cannot be ascertained with reasonable diligence." Ohio Civ.R. 4.4(a). In the instant case, no affidavit has been filed with the Court indicating the requisite information.
Motion to Find E Mail Sufficient for Service
Motion for Order to Allow Plaintiff to ...