BLOODWORTH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al

Filing 47

ORDER DENYING 28 Motion to Compel; DENYING AS MOOT 26 Motion to Quash Subpoena and DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 18 Motion to Amend/Correct. If the Plaintiff believes his claims against the proposed Defendants would be timely, he can renew his motion to amend, with an attached proposed amended complaint containing allegations tending to establish his new claims are timely, by January 17, 2014. Ordered by U.S. District Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 1/6/2014. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
EDWARD LAMAR BLOODWORTH,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
JOHN and/or JANE DOES,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-112 (MTT)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena to
Dr. Roby Kerr (Doc. 26) and motion to compel (Doc. 28). At the status conference held
on December 20, 2013, the Plaintiff stated he is no longer objecting to the production of
Dr. Kerr’s records and would make arrangements to obtain the release of those records.
Further, the Defendants clarified that they have produced all relevant, non-privileged
documents in their possession, and the information the Plaintiff seeks in his motion to
compel is in the possession of a federal agency which is not a party to this action.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion to quash is DENIED as moot, and the Plaintiff’s
motion to compel is DENIED.
Also currently pending is the Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint. (Doc. 18).
The Defendants have suggested that the Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue joining the
individuals he identified in his motion, but at the status conference, the Plaintiff seemed
to indicate he still wanted to join these individuals. The Defendants’ counsel mentioned
that the Plaintiff may not be able to join these individuals because the statute of

limitations has run unless the Court finds the Plaintiff’s claims against the proposed
Defendants relate back to the filing of his complaint. The Court found this to be an
interesting comment given that the Defendants did not oppose the Plaintiff’s motion.
The Court understands the Defendants’ counsel does not currently represent those
individuals (but presumably will if they are joined), but an obvious statute of limitations
issue seems to be the sort of argument that counsel would raise in response to the
Plaintiff’s motion to show his motion is futile.
Now that the Defendants’ counsel has raised the matter, it appears the Plaintiff
has not alleged facts that would demonstrate his claims against the parties he seeks to
join are timely. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion to amend is DENIED without
prejudice. If the Plaintiff believes his claims against the proposed Defendants would be
timely, he can renew his motion to amend, with an attached proposed amended
complaint containing allegations tending to establish his new claims are timely, by
January 17, 2014.
SO ORDERED, this the 6th day of January, 2014.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-