Fuentes v. Shah et al
Filing
76
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 11/23/2011. (MAS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 23 November, 2011 01:52:03 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
DAVID FUENTES
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. VIPIN SHAH et al.,
Defendants.
11-CV-3073
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
A status conference was held on November 21, 2011. Plaintiff
appeared pro se by video conference. Defense counsel, David Walter and
Lisa Cook, appeared in person.
Discussion was had regarding service on Nurse “Heather” and Dr.
“Parth.” Plaintiff recently filed a motion to amend identifying Nurse
Heather’s last name as “Rea.” However, Mr. Walter indicated that the
correct last name is “Ren,” according to his information. Mr. Walter also
indicated that Ms. Ren is a former employee of Wexford. The day after
1
the status hearing, Mr. Walter provided a forwarding address for Ms.
Ren. A waiver of service will be sent to Ms. Ren at her forwarding
address.
As for Dr. “Parth,” his correct name is Parthasarathi Ghosh. He is
no longer a Wexford employee The clerk has confirmed the correct
forwarding address with the information provided by Mr. Walter.
However, the address held by the clerk had an incorrect zip code. The
clerk will send another waiver to Dr. Ghosh, using the correct name and
zip code.
If the waivers to Ren and Ghosh are not signed and returned, the
Court will direct personal service by the U.S. Marshals.
Also discussed was Plaintiff’s motion to compel filed November 18,
2011. Plaintiff seeks to identify the “Doe” defendant or defendants
working in the health care unit who were contacted in response to his
grievances. The grievance responses state only that “HCU staff” were
contacted.
Mr. Walters offered that he has the same information Plaintiff has
2
and does not know to whom the “HCU staff” reference refers. The
person contacted could have been Dr. Ghosh or Ms. Fuqua, who are
already defendants. Defense counsel is going to check with their clients
to determine if their clients had any knowledge of who in HCU was
contacted in regards to Plaintiff’s grievances, or who likely would have
been the HCU contact person during the relevant time frame.
Plaintiff also seeks his medical records, which Mr. Walter has
agreed to provide to Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel
will be denied as moot. Plaintiff may renew his motion to compel if the
information supplied is not responsive.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff’s motion to amend is granted (d/e 70). The clerk is
directed to update the docket to show that Defendant Nurse Heather’s
last name is “Ren.”
2) The clerk is directed to update the docket to show that Dr.
“Parth’s” correct name is Parthasarathi Ghosh.
3) The clerk is directed to send, by certified mail, two copies of the
3
waiver of service form to Defendants Dr. Ghosh and Ms. Ren at their
respective forwarding addresses, along with a copy of the complaint, a
prepaid envelope for returning the form, and a copy of this order. The
Court will order the U.S. Marshals to personally serve Dr. Ghosh and/or
Ms. Ren if signed waivers are not returned. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(d)(2) requires the Court to impose service costs on any
defendant who fails to returned a signed waiver of service.
4) Within seven days of the entry of this order, Mr. Walter is
directed to send Plaintiff a copy of Plaintiff’s medical records in Mr.
Walter’s possession.
5) Mr. Walter and Ms. Cook are directed to ask their clients who in
the health care unit responded to Plaintiff’s grievances filed between
March, 2009, and July, 2009, or, who would have likely responded
during this time frame. Within fourteen days of the entry of this order,
Mr. Walter and Ms. Cook are directed to provide the responses they
received to Plaintiff and to file a notice of compliance with this Court.
The parties are reminded that they have a continuing duty to supplement
4
their discovery responses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
6) Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied as moot (d/e 72), with
leave to renew if the information he receives from Defendants pursuant
to this order is not responsive.
ENTERED:
November 23, 2011
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?