Bryant v. Cape Girardeau, County of et al

Filing 129

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 124 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff's Signature on Release Authorizations and Draft Protective Order filed by Defendant Ned Boyd, 123 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Matthew Glenn Bryant, 126 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply filed by Plaintiff Matthew Glenn Bryant. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on Plaintiff's Pro Se Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 123) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Ned Boy d's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 124) is GRANTED. Defendant Boyd shall re-send the medical releases to Plaintiff and Plaintiff shall execute the medical releases within 10 days of receiving the medical releases. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 126) is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 01/02/20. (CMH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

MATTHEW GLENN BRYANT,
Plaintiff,
v.
NED BOYD, U.S. Marshal for the
Eastern District of Missouri, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:18-CV-117 RLW

)
)
)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Pro Se Motion for Appointment of Counsel
(ECF No. 123), Defendant Ned Boyd's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 124), and Plaintiff's Motion
for Extension of Time (ECF No. 126).

I.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff again requests appointment of counsel. Plaintiff, however, fails to identify any
new basis for the appointment of counsel. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for
Appointment of Counsel for the reasons previously stated in the Court's April 1, 2019 Order. See
ECF No. 75. Plaintiff appears capable of litigating this case on his own behalf.

II.

Defendant's Motion to Compel

On November 6, 2019, Defendant Ned Boyd filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Signature
on Records Release Authorizations. (ECF No. 124). Plaintiff alleges Officer Boyd denied him
access to prescribed medications in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and seeks to hold
Officer Boyd personally liable for a Constitutional violation. (ECF No. 1, if23). Defendant Boyd
seeks three releases: (1) a release authorization to the Office of the General Counsel at the Missouri

Department of Corrections for Plaintiff's Department of Corrections records from 2006 to the
present; (2) a medical release authorization to the Office of General Counsel at the Missouri
Department of Corrections for Plaintiff's medical records from 2006 to the present, and (3) a
medical release authorization to the U.S. Probation Office for any medical records in Plaintiff's
probation documents from 2006 to the present. Plaintiff has failed to sign any of the releases and
has not responded to Defendant's Motion to Compel.
The Court grants Defendant's Motion to Compel. As demonstrated by Defendant Boyd,
Plaintiff has access to these medical records per Bureau of Prison regulations and under Missouri
law. See ECF No. 124 at 5-6. The Court further holds that the releases are relevant to Plaintiff's
claims and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff has
alleged that his health deteriorated due to Defendant's indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical
need. Therefore, Plaintiff's medical condition is at issue and the requested releases are necessary
for Defendant Boyd to defend against Plaintiff's claims. See Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234,
1240 (8th Cir.1997) ("In the face of medical records indicating that treatment was provided and
physician affidavits indicating that the care provided was adequate, an inmate cannot create a
question of fact by merely stating that she did not feel she received adequate treatment."); Meuir
v. Greene Cty. Jail Employees, 487 F.3d 1115, 1119 (8th Cir. 2007). The Court orders Plaintiff to

execute the releases requested by Defendant Boyd within 10 days of receiving the medical releases.
III.

Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time

Finally, Plaintiff requests a sixty-day extension due to medical issues and lack of access to
a law library. (ECF No. 126). Plaintiff, however, does not identify the particular deadline(s) for
which he requests extension(s). Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff's request for an extension,
without prejudice.

-2-

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on Plaintiff's Pro Se Motion for Appointment of

Counsel (ECF No. 123) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Ned Boyd's Motion to Compel (ECF No.

124) is GRANTED. Defendant Boyd shall re-send the medical releases to Plaintiff and Plaintiff
shall execute the medical releases within 10 days of receiving the medical releases.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No.

126) is DENIED without prejudice.

Dated this

c9:.ifJd of January, 2020.
day
RONNIE L. WHITE
· UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-