PACE

v.

LAWRENCE

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an evidentiary hearing [ECF No. 70] on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice. If necessary, an evidentiary hearing in this matter will be scheduled sua sponte when this Court is ready to review the Defendants’ motion to dismiss together with Plaintiff’s response. See McIlwain v. Burnside, 830 F. App’x 606, 611 (11th Cir. 2020) (finding “a district court may resolve disputed questions of fact on submitted papers only ‘in the absence of a timely request for an evidentiary hearing.’”) (citation omitted). 3. Regarding Plaintiff’s motions [ECF Nos. 71-72] requesting that subpoenas be issued to non-parties and that the Court appoint and subpoena two unidentified experts, a neurologist and a psychologist, the motions are DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff has not alleged that he has complied with the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding

and 45. If, after reviewing the rules, Plaintiff believes he is able to conduct depositions and obtain documents in compliance with all applicable rules, Plaintiff shall notify the Court and make a showing that he is able and willing to retain an officer to take responses and prepare the record, that he has properly served the defendants, and that a deposition can be conducted before the deadline for discovery set by this court's pretrial scheduling order, as amended herein. See Gaia v. Smith, No. C.A. C-09-212, 2010 WL 1257820, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2010)(denying prisoner plaintiff's motion for leave to depose inmates “without prejudice subject to a request by plaintiff as to the method of the depositions as well as an indication as to how the fees and expenses consistent with those depositions will be paid.”); Beckles v. Artuz, No. 01CIV10016(BSJ)(HBP), 2005 WL 702728, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2005)(ordering prisoner plaintiff “to submit a proposed plan for conducting the depositions he seeks. The proposal should address how the depositions will be conducted” including who “will administer the oath.”). To the extent Plaintiff believes that he may be relieved of the expenses and burdens associated with discovery practice because he is

45. Because the purported witnesses are non-parties, Plaintiff must propound upon the witness written questions and requests in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 30, 31, 34, and 45. This, in turn, must then be served upon the witnesses. in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 31(a)(3), and 34(e). Typically, a deponent answers written deposition questions orally, in the presence of a court officer. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 31(b). Unless the parties stipulate otherwise, the party noticing the deposition is required to provide the questions to an “officer, as that term is defined in Rule 28(a), who will take the deponent's responses to the questions, certify them, and send them to the noticing party.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(b); 30(b)(5). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c), Plaintiff may compel a non-party to produce documents and tangible things as provided in Fed. R. Civ. P.

45. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, Plaintiff must serve upon the non-party a subpoena to attend a deposition and to produce at that time and place, the specified documents. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)-(C). proceeding in this action as an in forma pauperis litigant, he is mistaken. Plaintiff is advised that his pauper status does not entitle him to free services such as scheduling, conducting, and recording depositions.

DONE AND ORDERED at Miaryi, Florida on this 12th day of April, 2021.

J J. OSULLIVAN

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ce: Marvin Pace, Pro Se DC#B02617 Suwannee Correctional Institution Inmate Mail/Parcels 5964 US Highway 90 Live Oak, FL 32060 Ezra Saul Greenberg, Ass’t County Atty Attorney for Defendant(s) Miami-Dade County Attorney’s Office 111 NW Ist Street, Ste 2810 Miami, FL 33128 Email: ezrag(@miamidade.gov