Moore v. Corizon Health Services et al
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to reconsider (docket no. 27 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (km)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
JIMMY C. MOORE,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:16-CV-229-BLW
v.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
CORIZON HEALTH SERVICES, IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
MURRAY YOUNG AND JOHN
MIGLIORI
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it a motion to reconsider. The motion is fully briefed and at
issue. For the reasons expressed below, the Court will deny the motion.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff Moore brings this action against the Idaho Department of Correction,
Corizon Heath Services (the prison medical contractor), Dr. Murray Young (Corizon’s
regional medical director), Dr. John Migilori, and Grant Roberts. Moore alleges that
defendants violated his civil rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by
providing him with constitutionally inadequate medical care, amounting to cruel and
unusual punishment, and by denying him equal protection of the law. He seeks
several million dollars in damages and injunctive relief in the form of proper treatment.
Memorandum Decision & Order – p. 1
Based on these factual allegations, Moore originally alleged both federal civil rights
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims.
In an Initial Review Order, the Court dismissed all the state law claims but gave
Moore the opportunity to amend his complaint to plead them with specificity. See Initial
Review Order (Dkt. No. 10). He never did so. The Court entered a Scheduling Order
setting a deadline for the completion of discovery and the filing of dispositive motions.
See Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 20).
Moore filed a motion to stay the case on the ground that he was involved in other
litigation that was taking all his time. On February 7, 2017, the Court denied that motion.
See Order (Dkt. No. 24). About three weeks later, Moore filed a motion to reconsider,
arguing for the first time that he had filed a Prelitigation Application Claim with the State
of Idaho Board of Medicine, requesting a Prelitigation Screening Panel as a precondition
to pursuing claims of medical malpractice. Moore now argues that his filing requires
staying this litigation until the Idaho Board of Medicine has resolved his claim. The
Court disagrees. The Court earlier dismissed all State law claims, and although Moore
was given the opportunity to amend his complaint, he did not take advantage of that
opportunity. Thus, the motion to reconsider must be denied.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to reconsider
(docket no. 27) is DENIED.
Memorandum Decision & Order – p. 2
DATED: July 2, 2018
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U.S. District Court Judge
Memorandum Decision & Order – p. 3
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?