OLIVER v. OLIVER et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
ANTHONY J. OLIVER, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: 	Case No. 5:24-cv-182-CAR
:
Commissioner TYRONE OLIVER, 	:
Field Director STAN SHEPARD, and 	:
Deputy Field Director BENJAMIN 	:
FORD, 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
___________________________________ :
ORDER
Currently before the Court are pro se Plaintiff Anthony Oliver’s Amended Motion
for Leave to Interview Incarcerated Witnesses and Prepare for Trial [Doc. 63], Motion for
Sanctions, Order to Show Cause, and Entry of Default [Doc. 64], Motion to Continue
Discovery for 60 days [Doc. 66], and Motion to Continue Discovery for 90 days [Doc. 67].
Defendants do not oppose extending discovery by 90 days and do not object to Plaintiff
propounding written discovery on an inmate who may be a witness to the extent this
complies with 	Georgia 	Department 	of 	Corrections (“GDC”) 	security 	procedures.1
1 Doc. 70.
Case 5:24-cv-00182-CAR Document 71 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 8

2
Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Valdosta State Prison Annex, but recently, Plaintiff was
transferred to Washington State Prison.2
For the reasons explained below, the Court CONSTRUES Plaintiff’s Amended
Motion for Leave to Interview Incarcerated Witnesses and Prepare for Trial as a Motion
for leave to conduct a deposition by written questions on a person confined in prison
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(a)(2)(B) and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for leave to conduct a
deposition by written questions on Inmate Robert Lee Ray [Doc. 63]. Further, the Court
GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to extend discovery by 90 days [Doc. 67]. As a result, the time
for discovery will expire on April 6, 2026, and the deadline to file dispositive motions is
May 6, 2026. Lastly, the Court DENIES all other relief requested in Plaintiff’s four
pending motions [Docs. 63, 64, 66, 67].
DISCUSSION
I. Amended Motion for Leave to Interview Incarcerated Witnesses and Prepare for
Trial [Doc. 63]
The Court denied Plaintiff’s original motion requesting leave to interview through
remote, electronic means Robert Lee Ray, a non-party inmate currently incarcerated at
Rogers State Prison who allegedly witnessed material facts.3 Now, in his Amended
2 Doc. 65.
3 Doc. 62 at 7.
Case 5:24-cv-00182-CAR Document 71 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 8

3
Motion, Plaintiff seeks to propound written discovery on Inmate Ray in lieu of a remote,
electronic oral deposition.4 Because interrogatories cannot be served upon a non-party
like Inmate Ray and Plaintiff seeks leave to interview a witness confined in prison by
written means in lieu of a deposition by oral examination, the Court CONSTRUES
Plaintiff’s Motion as a Motion for leave to conduct a deposition by written questions on a
person confined in prison under Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(a)(2)(B).
Defendants do not object to Plaintiff propounding written discovery on an inmate
who may be a witness as long as such discovery complies with GDC security procedures.5
The requested deposition by written questions does not appear to pose significant prison
security concerns because Fed. R. Civ. P. 31 mandates the following: (1) Plaintiff must
serve the written questions upon all parties and an officer, typically a court reporter; (2)
the officer must take the deposition of Inmate Ray; and (3) Plaintiff must not attend the
deposition. “Considering the financial and procedural impediments outlined [below], the
Court is skeptical whether, as a practical matter, Plaintiff will be able to obtain the
deposition 	by 	written 	questions.”6 	Nevertheless, 	because 	Inmate 	Ray 	may 	have
witnessed material facts and Defendants appear not to object as significant prison
security concerns do not appear to be present, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request
4 Doc. 63 at 1.
5 Doc. 70 at 1.
6 Kerch v. Jones, No. 4:22-CV-82-CDL-MSH, 2023 WL 12239930 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2023).
Case 5:24-cv-00182-CAR Document 71 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 8

4
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(a)(2)(B) for leave to conduct a deposition by written questions on
Inmate Ray. Accordingly, the Court ADVISES Plaintiff as follows: (1) “[t]he Court is not
responsible for arranging or ordering depositions[;]” (2) “Plaintiff must abide by the
applicable rules to take a deposition by written questions[;]” and (3) Plaintiff remains at
all times “responsible for arranging the deposition[], properly noticing the deposition[],
and paying the costs of the deposition[][.]”7
Plaintiff also appears to request the Court order non-party prison wardens to
permit Plaintiff to serve written questions on Inmate Ray and to order defense counsel to
serve that order upon those wardens. The Court DENIES such requests because they do
not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 31 which mandates parties seeking to depose a witness
serve their written questions on other parties and the officer taking the deposition, not
the deponent, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce an injunction against the non-
party prison wardens.8 In addition, as far as the Motion asks the Court to otherwise
coordinate or provide Plaintiff any resources to take Inmate Ray’s deposition by written
questions, the Court DENIES the Motion.
Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff requests the Court grant leave to send informal
written discovery requests to Inmate Ray other than written questions under Rule 31, the
7 West v. Temple, No. 5:14-CV-86-MTT-MSH, 2015 WL 9595406, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 2, 2015), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 5:14-CV-86(MTT), 2016 WL 51110 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 4, 2016).
8 See In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, MDL 878 v. Abbott Lab’ys. 72 F.3d 842, 842–43 (11th Cir. 1995)
(per curiam) (court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to issue injunction against non-party).
Case 5:24-cv-00182-CAR Document 71 Filed 02/19/26 Page 4 of 8

5
Court ADVISES Plaintiff that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require him to
obtain leave of court to conduct informal written discovery upon non-party witnesses,
including those who are incarcerated. And to the extent Plaintiff requests the Court to
order 	non-party 	prison 	officials 	to 	permit 	and/or 	facilitate 	this 	inmate-to-inmate
correspondence, 	the 	Court 	DENIES 	Plaintiff’s 	request 	because 	this 	Court 	lacks
jurisdiction to enforce an injunction against non-parties.9
II. Motion for Sanctions, Order to Show Cause, and Entry of Default [Doc. 64].
In his Motion for Sanctions, Order to Show Cause, and Entry of Default, Plaintiff
seeks this Court to order Defendants and their counsel be detained for “committing
fraud, perjury, and other seditious crimes.”10 Plaintiff’s arguments are baseless and
frivolous. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion [Doc. 64].
III. Motion to Continue Discovery for 60 days [Doc. 66] and Motion to Continue
Discovery for 90 days [Doc. 67]
In his Motion to Continue Discovery for 60 days, Plaintiff seeks the Court to
compel Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s alleged second set of discovery requests [Doc.
66]. Plaintiff’s request is inappropriate for two reasons. First, regardless of a motion’s title,
this Court does not entertain motions to compel absent a certificate that the movant first
9 Id.
10 Doc. 64.
Case 5:24-cv-00182-CAR Document 71 Filed 02/19/26 Page 5 of 8

6
attempted to confer, in good faith prior to filing the motion, with the opposing parties to
seek the requested information without court action.11 While Plaintiff represents he
contacted defense counsel for a joint motion to continue discovery by telephone and did
not receive a response,12 Plaintiff’s motion is unaccompanied by such a certificate that the
parties specifically attempted to resolve any dispute in anticipation of a motion to compel.
Second, defense counsel represents during a recent telephone call, Plaintiff confirmed he
never served the alleged second set of discovery requests.13 Thus, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s alleged
second set of discovery requests [Doc. 66].
In both his Motions to Continue Discovery, Plaintiff requests the Court to compel
Defendants to comply with the Court’s long-standing Order for defense counsel to
provide Plaintiff with copies of discovery previously served upon Plaintiff’s former
counsel.14 Defense counsel represents he provided Plaintiff with copies of “all (or
essentially all)” Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests previously served
upon Plaintiff’s former counsel, but defense counsel believes Plaintiff’s prison transfers
caused Plaintiff to misplace some copies of discovery.15 Further, defense counsel
represents Defendants will serve new duplicate copies of all discovery previously served
11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37; Local Rule 37.
12 Doc. 66 at 2.
13 Doc. 70 at 3.
14 Docs. 66, 67.
15 Doc. 70 at 4.
Case 5:24-cv-00182-CAR Document 71 Filed 02/19/26 Page 6 of 8

7
upon Plaintiff’s former counsel.16 Accordingly, the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s
request for the Court to compel defense counsel to provide Plaintiff with copies of
discovery previously served upon Plaintiff’s former counsel.
Similarly, in both Motions, Plaintiff requests the Court to compel Defendants to
provide Plaintiff with a free copy of his deposition transcript.17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(3)
provides parties and deponents must pay court reporters for deposition transcripts. To
the 	extent 	Plaintiff 	asserts 	this 	Court 	ordered 	otherwise, 	he 	displays 	his
misunderstanding. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for the Court to
compel defense counsel to provide Plaintiff with a free copy of his deposition transcript.
Lastly, in his Motion to Continue Discovery for 90 days, Plaintiff requests the
Court extend discovery by 90 days.18 Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s request.19 The
Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to extend discovery by 90 days [Doc. 67]. Accordingly,
the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s request to extend discovery by 60 days [Doc. 66].
As a result, the time for discovery will expire on April 6, 2026, and the deadline to file
dispositive motions is May 6, 2026.
16 Id.
17 Docs. 66, 67.
18 Doc. 67.
19 Doc. 70.
Case 5:24-cv-00182-CAR Document 71 Filed 02/19/26 Page 7 of 8

8
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, the Court CONSTRUES Plaintiff’s Amended
Motion for Leave to Interview Incarcerated Witnesses and Prepare for Trial as a Motion
for leave to conduct a deposition by written questions on a person confined in prison
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(a)(2)(B) and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for leave to conduct a
deposition by written questions on Inmate Robert Lee Ray [Doc. 63]. Further, the Court
GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to extend discovery by 90 days [Doc. 67]. As a result, the time
for discovery will expire on April 6, 2026, and the deadline to file dispositive motions is
May 6, 2026. Lastly, the Court DENIES all other relief requested in Plaintiff’s four
pending motions [Docs. 63, 64, 66, 67].
SO ORDERED, this 19th day of February, 2026.
S/ C. Ashley Royal___________
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 5:24-cv-00182-CAR Document 71 Filed 02/19/26 Page 8 of 8