Williams v. Ohio Department of Rehab and Correction, et al. et al
Filing
36
DECISION AND ENTRY - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time or Stay Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 35 ) is DENIED, in part, as to her request for a 60-day extension of time to respond; and 2. Pla intiff shall file a response, if any, by June 24, 2019 to the exhaustion contentions Defendants raise in their Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff is placed on notice that a failure to timely respond to this Order may result in the entry of sum mary judgment in Defendants favor and dismissal of her remaining claim. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington on 6/7/2019. (srb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
MELODY L. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION AND
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:16-cv-00384
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington
DECISION AND ENTRY
Plaintiff asserts in her Amended Complaint that Defendants violated her rights
under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution by denying her medical and dental care
during her incarceration at the Dayton Correctional Institution (DCI) and the Ohio
Reformatory for Women (ORW). See Doc. #s 25, PageID #s 735-46; Doc. #s 28, 29. In
response to this claim, Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based in
part on their assertion that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her claims through Ohio’s
administrative remedies.
The case is presently before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of
Time or Stay of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #35) pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(f). She seeks up to a 60-day extension of the deadline for her to respond to
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. She states that her discovery requests to
obtain her medical and dental records have not been fulfilled. And she explains that she
needs these records to demonstrate there is “a genuine factual issue as to each point that
the Defendant[s] have raised, and currently the facts are in the possession of Defendant.”
(Doc. #35, PageID #904).
Defendants’ failure-to-exhaust arguments present a potential basis for granting
summary judgment in their favor on Plaintiff’s remaining Eighth-Amendment claim.
Prisoners must exhaust—indeed, properly exhaust—their administrative remedies or
suffer dismissal of their claims. See Mattox v. Edelman, 851 F.3d 583, 590 (6th Cir.
2017) (citing, in part, Woodford v. Ngo, 584 U.S. 81, 90 (2006); see also 42 U.S.C.
§1997e(a) (“No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section
1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or
other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are
exhausted.”). Additionally, the information in Plaintiff’s medical and dental records has
no impact on whether genuinely disputed material facts remain concerning the steps she
took to exhaust her Ohio administrative remedies.
Because Plaintiff’s medical and dental records have no impact on the analysis of
Defendants’ exhaustion arguments in their Motion for Summary Judgment, a 60-day
extension for her to engage in further discovery related to her medical and dental records
is unwarranted. Plaintiff will be given a brief extension of time to address Defendants’
exhaustion arguments. At this time, Plaintiff does not need to respond to Defendants’
contention that she cannot establish Defendants were deliberately indifferent to her
serious medical needs.
2
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time or Stay Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. #35) is DENIED, in part, as to her request for a 60-day
extension of time to respond; and
2. Plaintiff shall file a response, if any, by June 24, 2019 to the exhaustion
contentions Defendants raise in their Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff is placed on notice that a failure to timely respond to this Order may result
in the entry of summary judgment in Defendants’ favor and dismissal of her
remaining claim.
June 7, 2019
s/Sharon L. Ovington
Sharon L. Ovington
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?