Staples v. Bonner Co. Medical and Jail Staff et al

Filing 21

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - Plaintiff may proceed on Fourteenth Amendment pretrial detainee medical claims against Defendants Dr. Troy Geyman, Nurse Chuck Frank, and Nurse Amanda Ozburn. Pursuant to General Order 324, this action is hereby returned to the Clerk of Court for random civil case assignment to a presiding judge, on the proportionate basis previously determined by the District Judges, having given due consideration to the existing caseload. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (lm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
JASON RYAN STAPLES,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00282-DCN
Plaintiff,
SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER
BY SCREENING JUDGE

v.
DR. TROY GEYMAN, NURSE
CHUCK FRANK, and NURSE
AMANDA OZBURN,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Jason Ryan Staples filed a Second Amended Complaint, asserting that
Bonner County Jail medical staff were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs
as a pretrial detainee between March 7, 2022, and April 13, 2022. Dkt. 17. Plaintiff asserts
that, as a result of a prison fight in which he defended another inmate from physical
violence against a third inmate, Plaintiff suffered a serious injury, but Defendants ignored
his injury. Plaintiff’s left infraorbital foramen was fractured, and his posterior lateral left
maxillary sinus wall was fractured and displaced. He suffered excessive pain during the
early stages of these injuries, due to prison medical staff failing to address his pain and
fractures immediately. The Court will liberally construe the allegations against these
Defendants to state cognizable Fourteenth Amendment failure to provide adequate medical
care claims and will permit Plaintiff to proceed to the next stage of litigation.

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 1

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff may proceed on Fourteenth Amendment pretrial detainee medical
claims against Defendants Dr. Troy Geyman, Nurse Chuck Frank, and Nurse
Amanda Ozburn.
2. Defendants will be allowed to waive service of summons by
executing, or having their counsel execute, the Waiver of Service of
Summons as provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) and returning it to the
Court within 30 days. If Defendants choose to return the Waiver of
Service of Summons, the answer or pre-answer motion will be due in
accordance with Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(ii). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court
will forward a copy of the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 17), a
copy of this Order, and a Waiver of Service of Summons to the
following counsel: Louis Marshall, Bonner County Prosecutor,
1500 Highway Sandpoint, ID 83864.
3. Should any entity determine that the individuals for whom counsel for
the entity was served with a waiver are not, in fact, its employees or
former employees, or that its attorney will not be appearing for the
entity or for particular former employees, it should file a notice within
the CM/ECF system, with a copy mailed to Plaintiff, indicating which
individuals for whom service will not be waived.

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 2

4.

If Plaintiff receives a notice from Defendants indicating that service
will not be waived for an entity or certain individuals, Plaintiff will
have an additional 90 days from the date of such notice to file a notice
of physical service addresses of the remaining Defendants, or claims
against them will be dismissed without prejudice without further
notice.

5.

The parties must follow the deadlines and guidelines in the Standard
Disclosure and Discovery Order for Pro Se Prisoner Civil Rights
Cases, issued with this Order.

6.

Any amended pleadings must be submitted, along with a motion to
amend, within 150 days after entry of this Order.

7.

Dispositive motions must be filed no later than 300 days after entry of
this Order.

8.

Each party must ensure that all documents filed with the Court are
simultaneously served upon the opposing party (through counsel if the
party has counsel) by first-class mail or via the CM/ECF system,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. Each party must sign
and attach a proper mailing certificate to each document filed with the
court, showing the manner of service, date of service, address of
service, and name of person upon whom service was made.

9.

The Court will not consider ex parte requests unless a motion may be
heard ex parte according to the rules and the motion is clearly

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 3

identified as requesting an ex parte order, pursuant to Local Rule of
Civil Practice before the United States District Court for the District
of Idaho 7.2. (“Ex parte” means that a party has provided a document
to the court, but that the party did not provide a copy of the document
to the other party to the litigation.)
10.

All Court filings requesting relief or requesting that the Court make a
ruling or take an action of any kind must be in the form of a pleading
or motion, with an appropriate caption designating the name of the
pleading or motion, served on all parties to the litigation, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7, 10 and 11, and Local Rules of Civil
Practice before the United States District Court for the District of
Idaho 5.1 and 7.1. The Court will not consider requests made in the
form of letters.

11.

No party may have more than three pending motions before the Court
at one time, and no party may file a motion on a particular subject
matter if that party has another motion on the same subject matter
currently pending before the Court. Motions submitted in violation of
this Order may be stricken, summarily denied, or returned to the
moving party unfiled.

12.

Plaintiff must notify the Court immediately if Plaintiff’s address
changes. Failure to do so may be cause for dismissal of this case
without further notice.

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 4

13.

Pursuant to General Order 324, this action is hereby returned to the
Clerk of Court for random civil case assignment to a presiding judge,
on the proportionate basis previously determined by the District
Judges, having given due consideration to the existing caseload.

DATED: August 28, 2024
_________________________
David C. Nye
Chief U.S. District Court Judge

SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 5