Proctor v. Van Horn et al

Filing 59

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb, on 1/10/2014, granting in part and denying in part 47 Motion to Extend Time to Review Medical Files. Plaintiff shall have an additional three hours within which to review his medical files under the terms and conditions outlined in attached order. Please see attached for details. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

CHARLES JUAN PROCTOR,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
DR. VAN HORN, et al.,
)
)
Defendants
)
___________________________________)

3:12-cv-00328-MMD-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
January 10, 2014

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:

KATIE LYNN OGDEN REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion to extend time to review his medical files. (Doc. # 47.)
Plaintiff seeks an additional five (5) hours to review his medical files. Defendants have responded
(Doc. #50) and Plaintiff has replied (Doc. #54).
Plaintiff states that “multiple things went wrong the day he reviewed his medical files” in
August of last year: his review of his medical files was scheduled for the same day that his mother
had previously scheduled with the prison to visit him. Plaintiff further states that his request to have
the file review on another date was denied. He admits that he cut his review short so he could have
the time to visit with his mother. (Docs. # 47 at 4, # 54 at 2.) Plaintiff submitted various exhibits in
support of his motion, including the April 23, 2013 letter from his mother advising him of the visit
on August 12, 2013 she was able to schedule with prison authorities, and kites reflecting the dates
and time spent for his file review and his visit with his mother. (Id., at 13, 14, 15 and 17.)
Defendants oppose the motion, stating that “Plaintiff insinuates the conflict [with his review
of the records] was the result of a nefarious conspiracy.” (Doc. # 50 at 3.) However, whether there
was some conspiracy or not, the end result is the same. Plaintiff was unable to utilize all of the time
allotted to him to review his records. Defendants submit that some demonstration of actual need for
further review should be required of Plaintiff and further propose that Plaintiff be required “to submit
a statement...setting forth what facts Plaintiff hopes to discover through further chart review, how
those facts prove an essential element of his medical/dental indifference claim, and why he cannot
prove those facts through other means than chart review.” (Id., at 3-4.) The court is not persuaded
by Defendants’ argument.

MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:12-cv-00328-MMD-WGC
Date: January 10, 2014
Page 2
Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. # 47) is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part. Plaintiff shall have an additional three (3) hours within which to review his medical files
under the following terms and conditions:
(1)

Plaintiff shall submit a medical kite requesting he be allowed to review his medical
chart no later than January 30, 2014;

(2)

Prior to February 10, 2014, NNCC medical staff shall make arrangements for
plaintiff to review his medical chart; and

(3)

The review shall take place all on one day for a period of three (3) hours in the
presence of the Director of Nursing Jacobs, or her designee.

Unless Plaintiff can present extraordinary circumstances, the court will not further intervene
with regard to Plaintiff’s review of his medical records.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk