Williams v. Whitfield et al
ORDER granting 106 Motion to Amend. Clerk of the Court is directed to file Plaintiffs motion to amend (#106) as his Amended Complaint adding Don Ball, Dhallek, Phillips County, Ed Williams, Sheriff, and David Webber as party Defendants. denying [1 56] Motion to Compel; denying as moot 158 Motion to Amend; denying 163 Motion to Compel; denying 164 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; denying 168 Motion to Appoint Expert. Plaintiff is hereby notified of his opportunity to file a response opposing the 151 motion for summary judgment within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 4/8/10. (dac)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS E A S T E R N DIVISION A L M. WILLIAMS A D C #362773 V. NO. 2:09CV00100 JLH/BD DEFENDANTS
L O N N I E WHITFIELD, et al.
ORDER P la in tif f has filed two motions to amend (docket entries #106 and #158), two m o tio n s to compel (#156 and #163), a motion for extension of time to complete discovery (# 1 6 4 ), and a motion to appoint an expert (#168). In addition, Separate Defendant Helena R e g io n a l Medical Center has filed a motion for summary judgment (#151). I. M o tio n s to Amend In his motion to amend (#106), Plaintiff requests that Don Ball, Dhallek, Phillips C o u n ty, Ed Williams, and David Webber be added as party Defendants. In the motion, P la in tif f alleges that Sheriff Williams acted with deliberate indifference to his medical n e e d s. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion (#106) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is d ire c ted to file Plaintiff's motion to amend (#106) as his Amended Complaint. In his m o s t recent motion to amend (#158), Plaintiff again seeks to add Sheriff Williams as a p a rty Defendant. That motion (#158) is DENIED as moot.
M o tio n s to Compel In his first motion to compel, Plaintiff requests that the Court order the Phillips
C o u n ty Jail to produce discovery he has requested under the Federal Rules of Civil P ro c e d u re . Unfortunately for Plaintiff, the Phillips County Jail is not a party to this la w s u it and is not an entity that can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See La Garza v. K a n d iyo h i County Jail, 18 Fed. Appx. 436 (8th Cir. 2001) (unpub. table op.) (affirming d is m is s a l of county jail on grounds that a jail is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion (#156) is DENIED. In his second motion to compel, Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendants to respond to certain discovery requests (#163). Defendants have responded to Plaintiff's m o tio n and argue that they have adequately responded to Plaintiff's discovery requests. The Court agrees. Plaintiff's motion to compel (#163) also is DENIED. III. M o tio n for Extension of Time In his motion for extension of time, Plaintiff requests that the Court extend the d is c o v e ry deadline in this matter from May 5, 2010 until June 7, 2010 (#164). Plaintiff sta tes that he needs additional time because "[D]efendants refuse to cooperate in a timely e x c h an g e ." Defendants have responded to Plaintiff's motion and state that they have tim e ly responded to all of Plaintiff's discovery requests (#166). In addition, Defendants arg u e that many of Plaintiff's discovery requests are duplicative. At this time, the Court d e n ies Plaintiff's request. Plaintiff has nearly thirty (30) days to continue to engage in
d is c o v e ry. If he cannot complete discovery by May 5, 2010, he may file another motion a t that time. IV . M o tio n to Appoint Expert In his motion to appoint an expert, Plaintiff request that the Court appoint an in d e p e n d en t medical expert to assist, "in identifying, assessing, and qualifying medical d o c u m e n ta tio n ." At this time, Plaintiff has not shown sufficient cause to justify any such o rd e r. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion (#168) is DENIED. V. H e le n a Regional Medical Center's Motion for Summary Judgment O n March 9, 2010, Separate Defendant Helena Regional Medical Center filed a m o tio n for summary judgment (#151). Plaintiff has not yet responded to the motion. Plaintiff is hereby notified of his opportunity to file a response opposing the motion for su m m a ry judgment within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.1 Plaintiff is a d v is e d that his response to the motion may include opposing or counter-affidavits, e x e c u te d by Plaintiff or other persons, which have either been sworn to under oath, i.e.,
Plaintiffs are reminded of their responsibility to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) o f the Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, w h ic h provides: "It is the duty of any party not represented by counsel to promptly notify th e Clerk and the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her address, to m o n ito r the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. A party a p p e a rin g for himself/herself shall sign his/her pleadings and state his/her address, zip c o d e , and telephone number. If any communication from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is n o t responded to within thirty (30) days, the case may be dismissed without prejudice. Any party proceeding pro se shall be expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal R u le s of Civil Procedure."
n o ta riz e d , or declared to under penalty of perjury in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746. Any affidavits submitted by Plaintiff must be based upon the personal knowledge of the p erso n executing the affidavit. No affidavit or other document containing Plaintiff's a lle g a t io n s will be considered when determining the motion for summary judgment unless it has been sworn to under oath or declared under penalty of perjury. U n d e r Local Rule 56.1 of the Rules of the United States District Court for the E a s te r n District of Arkansas, Plaintiff also is directed to file a separate, short and concise sta tem e n t setting forth the facts which they think need to be decided at a trial. IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of April, 2010.
____________________________________ U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?