Barnes v. Obiakor et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY BARNES,
Plaintiff,
v.
OBIAKOR and PARR-MIRZA,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:25-cv-12680
Mark A. Goldsmith
United States District Judge
Patricia T. Morris
United States Magistrate Judge
_______________________________/
ORDER RESOLVING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF No. 16)
AND
DEFENDANT OBIAKOR’S MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF No. 21)
I. 	Introduction
This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Plaintiff,
proceeding pro se, alleges that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights.
(ECF No. 1). Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF
No. 16) and Defendant Obiakor’s motion to compel discovery responses (ECF No.
21). This Order will resolve both motions.
II. 	Discussion
On October 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time,
explaining that when the Court denied his motion for the appointment of counsel on
Case 2:25-cv-12680-MAG-PTM ECF No. 24, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 4

2
October 15, 2025 (ECF No. 15), it left him only one day to “properly answer the
Defendant’s pleadings for Interrogatories and Discovery . . . and to reply to
Defendant’s answer to his Complaint. 	(Id. at PageID.50). 	A week later, Obiakor
filed a motion to compel discovery responses, asserting that Plaintiff had failed to
properly respond to a set of discovery requests served on September 18, 2025, and
also refused to sign an authorization for the release of his medical records. 	(ECF
No. 21).
Both of these motions stem from Obiakor sending discovery requests in the
absence of a scheduling order. “In pro se prisoner civil litigation, such as this case,
discovery 	typically 	commences 	upon 	issuance 	of 	a 	scheduling 	order 	setting
discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.” Brown v. Snyder, No. 19-11325, 2020
WL 6342669, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 29, 2020). Generally, this Court waits until all
defendants have been served before entering a scheduling order. 	In this case,
Defendant Parr-Mirza’s waiver of service was not docketed until September 22,
2025 (ECF No. 12), and counsel did not appear on Parr-Mirza’s behalf until October
30, 2025 (ECF No. 17). Put simply, Obiakor’s discovery requests were premature.
Parr-Mirza has filed a dispositive motion in response to the complaint (ECF
No. 19) and the Court intends to address that motion before entering a scheduling
order. 	No discovery should be exchanged until a scheduling order is entered. An
exception will be made for compelling Plaintiff to sign an authorization for the
Case 2:25-cv-12680-MAG-PTM ECF No. 24, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 4

3
release of his medical records. Courts routinely grant motions to compel prisoner-
plaintiffs to sign such authorizations when they bring claims related to the medical
care they received (or perhaps, did not receive) while incarcerated. See, e.g., Arnold
v. Hutchison, No. 16-cv-13403, 2017 WL 1684674, at *2 (E.D. Mich. May 3, 2017);
Davis v. Caruso, No. 07-cv-11740, 2009 WL 931165, at * 5 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31,
2009); Tolson v. Washburn, No. 3:19-cv-00175, 2021 WL 4391642, at *3 (M.D.
Tenn. Sept. 24, 2021); Sleighter v. Kent Cnty. Jail Admin., No. 1:12–cv–763, 2013
WL 5320203, at *5 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 20, 2013). Finally, it is unnecessary to give
Plaintiff extra time to file a reply to Obiakor’s answer to the complaint because it is
not common practice in this Court to allow plaintiffs to file replies to answers to
their complaints.
III. 	Conclusion
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 16)
and Obiakor’s motion to compel discovery responses (ECF No. 21) are hereby
deemed RESOLVED.
Obiakor shall send Plaintiff a new authorization for the release of his medical
records within five days of entry of this Order. Plaintiff must sign the authorization
and mail it back to Obiakor within ten days of its receipt. 	Obiakor may file a
renewed motion to compel if he does not receive a signed authorization by the end
of the month.
Case 2:25-cv-12680-MAG-PTM ECF No. 24, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 3 of 4

4
Plaintiff is reminded that his response to Parr-Mirza’s motion is due by
November 20, 2025.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: November 10, 2025 	s/PATRICIA T. MORRIS
Patricia T. Morris
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-12680-MAG-PTM ECF No. 24, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 4 of 4