Glenn v. O'Neal et al
ORDER denying 61 Motion to Reinstate Defendants; denying 62 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff has until 9/8/2017 to identify, amend, or dismiss defendants named herein. The court EXTENDS the deadline for service until 10/2/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 08/25/2017. (pts)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
KENNETH MARTIN GLENN,
MRS. K. WILLIAMS, Chief Counselor;
MRS. WICKER HUMPHRIES, Counselor; )
MRS. PRICE, Deputy Warden; JEFFREY
WIGGINS, Sergeant; MRS. PERRY, Mental )
Health Counselor; JOHNSON STATE
PRISON’S PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT )
PROVIDER; and JOHN OR JANE DOE,
Director of Johnson State Prison’s Psychiatric )
Pro se Plaintiff, formerly incarcerated at Johnson State Prison (“JSP”) in
Wrightsville, Georgia, filed the above-captioned case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before
the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate Defendants (doc. no. 61) and Motion for
Extension of Time (doc. no. 62).
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate Defendants.
(Doc. no. 61.)
Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, these Defendants were not “dropped” from the case for
lack of service. Rather, the Court screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1915A, and found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted for (1) denial of due process by denying his grievances against Defendants Williams,
Wicker-Humphries, Emmons, Price, and Baker; (2) terroristic threats against Defendant
O’Neal; (3) ordering gang members to assault him and inject him with staph infection against
Defendant O’Neal; (4) Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to his safety
against Defendants Williams, Emmons, Price, O’Neal, and Jefferson; (5) Eighth Amendment
claim for deliberate indifference to his back injury, wrists and hands injury, hemorrhoids, and
staph infection against Defendants Price, JSP Medical Provider, John Doe JSP Medical
Director, Jefferson, Andrews-Bodi, and Nurse Brian Doe; (6) failure to enforce prison cell
phone regulations against Defendants James Doe Deputy Warden of Security and James Doe
person in charge of security; (7) supervisory liability claims against Defendant Price; and (8)
all claims against Defendants Nathan Deal and Homer Bryson. (Doc. nos. 31, 39.) As a
result, the Court dismissed Defendants Emmons, Baker, O’Neal, James Doe Deputy Warden
of Security, James Doe in charge of security, JSP Medical Provider, John Doe JSP Medical
Director, Jefferson, Andrews-Bodi, Nurse Brian Doe, Deal, and Bryson from this case. (Id.)
Accordingly, the Court will not reinstate Defendants properly dismissed from this case.
The Court likewise DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time. (Doc. no. 62.)
As the Court previously informed Plaintiff, the Court will not grant blanket extensions on all
deadlines. (See doc. no. 47, p. 1.) However, in the interest of justice and efficiency, the
Court will briefly provide Plaintiff with information on the procedural posture of the case
and instructions on how he must proceed.
On May 17, 2017, in response to Plaintiff’s allegations all of his papers were taken by
Warden Scott Wilkes and his request for a ninety-day extension, the Court directed the United
States Marshal to serve remaining Defendants with the complaint and summons for claims of (1)
retaliatory punishment for filing grievances against Defendants Williams and WickerHumphries; (2) excessive force against Defendant Wiggins; and (3) deliberate indifference to
psychiatric needs against Defendants Perry, Price, JSP Psychiatric Provider, and Director of JSP
Psychiatric Provider. (Doc. no. 51, pp. 2-3; doc. no. 33, p. 6.) The Court explained to Plaintiff
that it was his responsibility to provide sufficient information for the Marshal to identify and
locate Defendants to timely effect service within 90 days of the Court’s March 20th Order.
(Doc. no. 51, p. 3 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).) The Court also informed Plaintiff that any
Defendant not timely served within this 90-day period may be dismissed. (Id.) Defendants
Wicker-Humphries, Perry, Price, and Williams have all waived service and filed an answer to
Plaintiff’s amended complaint. (Doc. nos. 54, 56, 57, 58, 60.)
The Marshal attempted to effect service upon John or Jane Doe, Director of JSP’s
Psychiatric Provider, and JSP’s Psychiatric Treatment Provider but was unable to do so. Based
on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, they were able to identify and name four possible individuals
and psychological providers who possibly provided Plaintiff with psychological treatment while
he was incarcerated at JSP but were unable to verify the Defendants Plaintiff intends to sue.1
(See Exhibit A; doc. no. 52; Exhibit B; doc. no. 59.) The Court previously instructed Plaintiff in
its May 31, 2017, Order to “provide enough specific information to adequately identify [John or
Jane Doe], file an amended complaint to correct the name of [John or Jane Doe] with correct
identifying contact information, or file a voluntary dismissal of [John or Jane Doe].” (Doc. no.
The CLERK is DIRECTED to attach the returns of service, (doc. nos. 52, 59), to
Plaintiff’s copy of this Order as Exhibits A & B.
Accordingly, consistent with this Court’s May 17th and May 31st Orders, Plaintiff must,
within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, either provide enough specific
information to adequately identify Defendants John or Jane Doe, Director of JSP’s Psychiatric
Provider, and JSP’s Psychiatric Treatment Provider, file an amended complaint to correct the
name of these defendants with correct identifying contact information, or file a voluntary
dismissal of these defendants. Should Plaintiff not respond, the Court will recommend dismissal
of these defendants without prejudice for failure to effect service.
Furthermore, the ninety-day period for service expired on August 15, 2017. However, as
the United States Marshal indicated, they mailed Defendant Wiggins a notice and waiver of
service on July 19, 2017, and his time to waive service has not yet expired. Accordingly, the
Court EXTENDS the deadline for service until October 2, 2017, in order to ensure all
Defendants are properly served.
Finally, Plaintiff indicates a possible desire to dismiss his case without prejudice and
refile his case. (See doc. no. 62, pp. 2-3.) While the Court cannot give Plaintiff any legal advice
on the ramifications of such a course of action, he may file a motion with the Court to dismiss
the present case without prejudice and attempt to file a new suit regarding the same claims if he
SO ORDERED this 25th day of August, 2017, at Augusta, Georgia.
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?