Granger v. Hansell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CLEVERN GRANGER 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 26-90
CHURITA HANSELL 	SECTION “B” (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff Clevern Granger (“Granger”) filed a Motion for Limited Discovery (ECF No.
2), Motion for Service of Summons by the U.S. Marshal (ECF No. 3), and Motion to Preserve
Evidence (ECF No. 4) in connection with his pro se and in forma pauperis complaint brought
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his discovery motions, Granger requests the Court order the Defendant
to preserve and produce specific discovery as it relates to his claims pertaining to his criminal
conviction and alleged prosecutorial misconduct. ECF No. 2 at 1-2; ECF No. 4 at 1-2. Further,
Granger requests in his motion for service of summons, that given his pauper status, the Court
order service upon the Defendant by the U.S. Marshal’s Service. ECF No. 4 at 1.
The Court is currently conducting its statutory frivolousness review of Granger’s complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, as applicable. Upon granting
Granger’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court ordered that service of
summons be withheld. ECF No. 8 at 1. Should Granger’s claims proceed past the initial screening
phase, the Court will issue summons upon the Defendant via the U.S. Marshal’s Service in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). In the meantime, any issuance of service
upon the Defendant prior to the conclusion of the Court’s statutory frivolousness review is
premature.
As to Granger’s discovery motions, discovery in a civil proceeding is governed by Rules
26-37 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Further, the duty to preserve material evidence arises
Case 2:26-cv-00090-ILRL-KWR Document 9 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 2

2
once a party knows or should have known that litigation is imminent; it does not depend on a court
order. See Condrey v. SunTrust Bank of Georgia, 431 F.3d 191, 203 (5th Cir. 2005). If a party fails
to take necessary steps to preserve electronically stored evidence or intentionally destroys
evidence, that party may be sanctioned. 	FED. R. C IV. P. 37(e)(2); Coastal Bridge Co., L.L.C. v.
Heatec, Inc., 833 F. App’x 565, 573 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S.
32, 43–46 (1991)).
Defendant’s preservation of evidence obligation exists even without a court order. As
previously noted, the Court is still conducting its statutory frivolousness review of Granger’s
complaint. “The district court need not allow any discovery unless it finds that plaintiff has
supported his claim with sufficient precision and factual specificity to raise a genuine issue as to
the illegality of defendant’s conduct at the time of the alleged acts.” Schultea v. Wood, 47 F. 3d
1427, 1434 (5th Cir. 1995); see also FED. R. C IV. P. 26(d). Thus, until completion of the Court’s
statutory frivolousness review, discovery is premature and will not be allowed.
For the reasons stated herein,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Clevern Granger’s Motion for Limited Discovery (ECF
No. 2), Motion for Service of Summons by the U.S. Marshal (ECF No. 3), and Motion to
Preserve Evidence (ECF No. 4) are DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this __ day of February, 2026.
_____________________________________
KAREN WELLS ROBY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11th
Case 2:26-cv-00090-ILRL-KWR Document 9 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 2