Edwards v. Hynes et al

Filing 83

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 79 Motion for Sanctions and denying Plaintiff's request to appoint a doctor. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 03/20/2018. (jlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION
CHARLES EDWARDS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MEDICAL DIRECTOR PAT CLARK,
)
Wheeler Correctional Facility; VIRGINIA
)
COTTLE, Dental Assistant, Wheeler
)
Correctional Facility; and DR. JASMINE
)
AHN, Dentist,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________

CV 316-019

ORDER
_________
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions. (Doc. no. 79.) Plaintiff alleges
defense counsel improperly told him at his deposition that “he would make Plaintiff [sic] life
miserable” and misrepresented to the Court that Plaintiff has diabetes. (Id.) Plaintiff further
requests the Court appoint a doctor under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 to examine him to
determine whether he in fact has diabetes. (Id.)
Plaintiff is not entitled to sanctions. First, defense counsel did not tell Plaintiff “he
would make Plaintiff [sic] life miserable” as Plaintiff claims. Defense counsel’s full quote,
in context, reads, “If you don’t want any problem, why don’t you dismiss this lawsuit,
because I’m going to make your life -- I’m going to make you prove it. I’m not trying to be
hard on you, Mr. Edwards.” (Pl. Dep., doc. no. 82, p. 59.) Therefore, because defense
counsel did not make the alleged statement, Plaintiff is not entitled to sanctions for it.

Second, as defense counsel properly stated in Defendants’ Statement of Material
Facts Not in Dispute, Georgia Department of Correction records reflect that Washington
State Prison did independently label Plaintiff as having diabetic profile. (Doc. no. 63, p. 18.)
Therefore, defense counsel did not misrepresent this fact in the summary judgment motion.
Finally, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to appoint a doctor to determine whether he
has diabetes.

Whether Plaintiff actually has diabetes is not at issue in this case.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions. (Doc. no. 79.)
SO ORDERED this 20th day of March, 2018, at Augusta, Georgia.

2