DUNN v. FREELAND
3:22-cv-00078
M.D. Ga.Sep 29, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Gerald Dunn, proceeding pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, moved for court-issued subpoenas for video evidence of an August 23, 2020 incident at the Belk department store in the Georgia Square Mall.
- Dunn sought three subpoenas: (1) social media video of a bystander recording outside the store, (2) Belk’s surveillance footage from that date and location, and (3) law enforcement body‑worn camera footage from the incident.
- The motions lacked identifying information: no platform or user for the alleged social media post, no contact or camera identification for Belk’s footage, and no specified law enforcement agency for body cam footage.
- The court emphasized its supervisory role over subpoenas in pro se/prisoner cases and reiterated that pro se status does not relieve a litigant from procedural rules or obligate the court to act as counsel.
- Defendant had already filed a summary judgment motion and attached body‑worn camera footage as exhibits, making a separate subpoena for body cam footage unnecessary on the record.
- The magistrate judge denied all three subpoena requests as either impractical or unnecessary given the record and the insufficient specificity provided by Dunn.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should issue a subpoena for social media footage of the incident | Dunn contends the social media video exists and must be subpoenaed | Implicit: plaintiff must identify source; subpoenas require specific targets and are not a substitute for discovery | Denied — motion lacks the specific platform/user info necessary to issue a subpoena |
| Whether the court should issue a subpoena to Belk for its surveillance footage | Dunn requests Belk surveillance for the incident date/location | Implicit: plaintiff must provide more details (contacts/camera IDs); subpoenas should not be issued without specificity | Denied — minimal details insufficient to issue subpoena |
| Whether the court should issue a subpoena for law enforcement body‑worn camera footage | Dunn requests body cam footage from officers at the scene | Implicit: footage should be obtainable through normal discovery from defendant or from identified agency | Denied — plaintiff did not explain why discovery was inadequate and body cam footage is already submitted with defendant's summary judgment exhibits |
| Whether the court must act as de facto counsel to locate third‑party evidence for a pro se litigant | Dunn essentially asks the court to locate and subpoena unidentified third‑party sources | Court/defendant assert pro se status does not relieve litigant of procedural duties or permit the court to perform counsel functions | Held — court will not act as counsel; pro se litigant must provide necessary information and follow discovery rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989) (pro se litigants remain subject to procedural rules)
- GJR Investments, Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 1998) (courts should be lenient to pro se litigants but not act as de facto counsel)
- Powell v. Lennon, 914 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir. 1990) (pro se litigants receive leniency)
- Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025 (11th Cir. 1987) (courts must prevent abuse of subpoena power in supervising pro se prisoner cases)