Townsend v. Rhodes et al
Filing
36
ORDER Requiring Counsel for the MDOC Defendants to Provide Further Information--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RICHARD TOWNSEND,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 4:14-CV-10411
Judge Terrence G. Berg
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
v.
KAREN RHODES,
VICKI CARLSON,
LINDA HAASE,
MARCIA O’CONNELL and
JOHN DOES 1-4,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER REQUIRING COUNSEL FOR THE MDOC DEFENDANTS TO
PROVIDE FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING THE JOHN DOE
DEFENDANTS
A.
Each of the four (4) named defendants has appeared.
Richard Townsend (#181420) is currently incarcerated at the Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC) Lakeland Correctional Facility (LCF) in
Coldwater, Michigan. DE 9; see also www.michigan.gov/corrections, “Offender
Search.” On January 27, 2014, while incarcerated at the G. Robert Cotton
Correctional Facility (JCF) in Jackson, Michigan, Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit
against Karen Rhodes, described as a doctor at JCF (¶ 25); Vickie (Vicki) Carlson,
Linda Haas (Haase) and Marsha O’Conner (Marcia O’Connell), described as
registered nurses at JCF (¶ 28); and John Does #1-#4, described as doctors and
registered nurses at Allegiance Hospital in Jackson, Michigan (¶¶ 26-27).1
Defendant Karen Rhodes, D.O., has appeared (DE 23, DE 24) and has filed
an answer, affirmative defenses and jury demand (DE 25), as well as a statement of
disclosure of corporate affiliations and financial interest (DE 26). MDOC
Defendants Carlson, Haase and O’Connell have also appeared (DE 27) and have
filed a motion for summary judgment (DE 28).
B.
The four (4) John Doe defendants have yet to be identified.
Plaintiff’s complaint further describes John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 as
individuals who prescribed and administered Humulin insulin to Plaintiff on
December 24, 2013 at Allegiance Hospital in Jackson, Michigan. DE 1 at 4 ¶ 17.
Plaintiff’s complaint also describes John Doe #3 and John Doe #4 as individuals
who prescribed and administered Humulin insulin to Plaintiff on January 6, 2014 at
Allegiance Hospital. DE 1 at 4 ¶ 19.
By its February 13, 2015 order, this Court extended the service deadline and
granted in part Plaintiff’s first motion to compel (DE 13) to the extent Plaintiff
1
This case was originally assigned to Judge Berg and Magistrate Judge Komives.
DE 1. Judge Berg referred the case to Magistrate Judge Komives for pretrial
matters. DE 5. On January 13, 2015, the case was reassigned from Magistrate
Judge Komives to me.
2
sought to identify the John Doe Defendants. DE 34 at 4. The order specifically
provided:
Counsel for Defendants Carlson, Haase, and O’Connell, who also
represents MDOC, must determine through the Lakeland Correctional
Facility Health Care office or other appropriate source the names of
the four individuals who provided Plaintiff’s medical care at the
Allegiance Hospital on December 24, 2013 and on January 6, 2014.
DE 34 at 4 ¶ 1.
The Court is now in receipt of Assistant Attorney General Kevin R.
Himebaugh’s letter dated February 26, 2015. DE 35. Therein, defense counsel
(heienafter “counsel for the MDOC defendants”) lists Jordon Gebhardt, Emily
Shafer, Brandi Cox, Stacy Sparks, Lisa Bence and Russell Bret as the names
appearing in the record for Plaintiff’s December 23, 2013 visit to Allegiance
Hospital. The letter also lists Michael Nizinski, Letarte Shawn, Leigh Stoel,
Jessica Tracy and Joshua Jansler as the names appearing in the record for
Plaintiff’s January 6, 2014 visit. DE 35 at 1. The letter further states: “More than
four names appeared in the record. Because I am in no position to guess which of
the four names match the John Doe 1 through 4 referred to in your complaint, I
have supplied all the names associated with your treatment at Allegiance Hospital
on December 23, 2013 and January 6, 2014.” DE 35 at 2.
Although counsel for the MDOC defendants’ submission of these eleven
(11) names complies, to the letter, with the above-quoted portion of this Court’s
3
February 13, 2015 order (DE 34 at 4 ¶ 1), Plaintiff is still left without enough
information to identify the individuals who prescribed and administered the
Humulin insulin to him on his December 2013 and January 2014 visits to
Allegiance Hospital. See DE 1 ¶¶ 17, 19.
C.
Order
Accordingly, no later than March 16, 2015, counsel for the MDOC
defendants SHALL supply Plaintiff with enough additional information to enable
him to identify the four (4) John Doe Defendants, including but not limited to the
eleven (11) previously identified individuals’ genders, their professional
designations (such as M.D., D.O., P.A. or R.N.), their titles, their departments,
what services they appear to have provided to Plaintiff, whether they appear to
have prescribed or administered insulin to Plaintiff and where their names appear
in the medical records, to the extent it is possible to do so.
In lieu of supplying this information, counsel for the MDOC defendants may
provide Plaintiff with a complete copy of all medical records in his or his clients’
possession or to which he or his clients have access which refer, relate, evidence
and/or pertain to Plaintiff’s December 2013 and January 2014 visits to Allegiance
Hospital. Such production would be at the MDOC’s expense.
Any correspondence by which counsel for the MDOC defendants transmits
information or records to Plaintiff in compliance with this Order shall be copied to
4
the Undersigned and delivered to the Court by filing it through the CM/ECF
system; however, copies of actual medical records, if transmitted in compliance
with this Order, should not be filed with the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 9, 2015
s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I certify that a copy of this document was sent to parties of record on Monday, March 9, 2015,
electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael L. Williams
Case Manager to the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti
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?