Phillips v. Ottey et al

Filing 118

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING 92 motion for leave to file supplemental complaint. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 12/6/2016. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
ARTHUR PHILLIPS
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 14-0980

:
DR. COLIN OTTEY, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Arthur Phillips (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for
leave to file a supplemental complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(d).

(ECF No. 92).

Defendants Colin Ottey, Ava Joubert, Greg

Flury,

Katie

Carla

Winner,

Buck,

Kristi

Cortez,

and

Wexford

Health Sources, Inc. (“Defendants”) opposed this motion (ECF No.
96),

and

Plaintiff

replied

(ECF

No.

101).

Plaintiff

subsequently supplemented his motion with a copy of his proposed
supplemental complaint at the court’s instruction.

(ECF Nos.

107; 108; 117).
As the court previously noted, leave to file a supplemental
complaint should be freely granted, and denied only where good
reason, such as prejudice to the defendant, exists.

(ECF No.

107, at 19 (citing Franks v. Ross, 313 F.3d 184, 198 n.15 (4th
Cir.

2002)).

Plaintiff’s

The

amended

operative
complaint,

pleading
which

in

this

identified

action

the

is

relevant

time period of Plaintiff’s allegations as March 6, 2013, through

March 8, 2014, and alleged that all of the violations occurred
while Plaintiff was incarcerated at North Branch Correctional
Institution.

(ECF No. 45 ¶¶ 7, 27).

The amended complaint did

not allege ongoing harm or seek injunctive relief.

Plaintiff’s

supplemental complaint covers the period from March 9, 2014,
through the date of its filing, November 28, 2016.
¶ 1).

(ECF No. 117

It details additional allegations of deficient medical

care pertaining to the same knee injury and skin disorder and
seeks

both

Plaintiff
physicians,

damages
alleges
and

and
that

other

injunctive
all

health

relief.

nurses,
care

(Id.

physician

professionals

¶¶

41-42).

assistants,
who

provided

care to Plaintiff during this time were agents, servants, or
employees of Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc., and acted
within the scope of that agency, service, or employment.
¶¶ 3-4).

(Id.

The supplemental complaint is offered in support of

Plaintiff’s existing causes of action under the First and Eighth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Articles 19,
24, and 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and does not
add causes of action or parties.
Plaintiff

previously

(Id. ¶ 1).

settled

a

suit

against

a

different

medical contractor and his health care providers that alleged
similar

civil

conditions.

rights

violations

related

to

the

same

health

See Order, Phillips v. Murray, et al., No. DKC-11-

0302 (D.Md. Nov. 19, 2012), ECF No. 85; Stipulation, Phillips,
2

No. DKC-11-0302 (D.Md. Mar. 4, 2013), ECF No. 90.

The instant

suit involves nearly identical claims, relating to the treatment
of the same underlying medical conditions, primarily at the same
correctional institution, and even involves some of the same
medical professionals.

The alleged violations here date from

just two days after the filing of the stipulation of dismissal
in

Plaintiff’s

Plaintiff’s

previous

suit.

allegations,

Given

it

in

is

the

the

ongoing

interest

nature

of

of

judicial

economy to allow Plaintiff to supplement his amended complaint
to allow this litigation fully to address his medical care and
treatment since March 6, 2013, rather than force Plaintiff to
file a third suit on these same issues to address his care from
2014 through the present.
While

Plaintiff’s

proposed

supplemental

complaint

does

extend the relevant time period of his claims and incorporates
his medical care while at Patuxent Institution, granting leave
to

file

the

Defendants.
employed

by

supplemental
Plaintiff

Defendant

complaint

will

not

prejudice

was

receiving

care

from

providers

Wexford

Health

Sources,

Inc.,

at

all

relevant times and institutions, and it does not appear from the
parties’

briefing

that

significant discovery.

these

new

allegations

will

require

Plaintiff has already been deposed, at

least in part, regarding his current medical treatment (see ECF
No. 101, at 3-5), and Plaintiff previously requested all of his
3

medical records in discovery (see ECF No. 85-2).1

Moreover,

discovery is not scheduled to close until January 27, 2017.
(ECF No. 112).

The interests of judicial economy will be best

served by considering all of Plaintiff’s allegations of past and
ongoing deficient medical care for these conditions together.
For the foregoing reasons, it is this 6th day of December,
2016, by the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, ORDERED that:
1.

The motion for leave to file supplemental complaint

filed by Plaintiff Arthur Phillips (ECF No. 92) BE, and the same
hereby IS, GRANTED;
2.

Plaintiff

Arthur

Phillips’s

supplemental

complaint

(ECF No. 117) is deemed filed and served; and
3.

The

clerk

will

transmit

copies

of

this

Memorandum

Opinion and Order to counsel for the parties.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

1

Defendants’ motion for a protective order relating to the
production of Plaintiff’s Patuxent Institution mental health
records from 2015 and 2016 (ECF No. 85), suggests that discovery
has not been limited to Plaintiff’s care at North Branch
Correctional Institution or to the timeframe of the amended
complaint.
4