Medley v. United States of America

Filing 84

ORDER Adopting the R & R of M.J. Carlson 80 . Dft's mtn for summary jgmnt 69 is deferred. Case is remanded to M.J. Carlson. Pltf's mtn for exttm 76 is dismissed as moot. See order for details.Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 3/28/17. (ma)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LOUIS MEDLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

:
:
:
: CIVIL NO. 1:15-CV-1261
:
:
:
:
:

ORDER

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
On June 29, 2015, pro se Plaintiff Louis Medley, a federal inmate housed in
a United States Penitentiary in Canaan Township, Pennsylvania (USP-Canaan), filed a
complaint against Defendant, the United States, which was liberally construed as alleging
two claims of negligence pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §
2671. (Docs. 1 & 48). The complaint alleges that Bureau of Prison (BOP) officials at
USP-Canaan negligently failed to follow their own protocol for tuberculosis (TB) and
placed an inmate with TB in Medley’s prison housing unit, exposing him to TB, which he
later contracted in latent form. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 12, 18-29). Specifically, the complaint states
that BOP officials at USP-Canaan “failed through deliberate neglect to take adequate
precautions before and after the disease (TB) outbreak, causing [Medley] . . . to be
exposed and infected with said infectious disease.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 18). The complaint also
suggested allegations of medical malpractice, noting that prison officials were negligent in
their “deliberate refusal to treat [Medley] (medically) for” TB. (Id. at ¶ 29). Medley also
filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), which were granted. (Docs. 2, 6, & 8).

On November 16, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, for summary judgment, and argued that Medley’s complaint sounded solely in
medical malpractice and should be dismissed for failure to provide expert testimony or a
certificate of merit. (Docs. 17, 20 at 2). While that motion was pending, Medley filed a
motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. 28). On January 12, 2016, the court denied the motion
to appoint counsel “at the present time,” and noted that Medley’s “request is made at a
time when a potentially dispositive summary judgment motion is pending,” and that “it
would be inappropriate to appoint counsel until [the court had] the opportunity to” assess
whether Medley’s claims had arguable legal merit. (Doc. 30 at 1, 3). Simultaneous with
his motion to appoint counsel, Medley responded to Defendant’s summary judgment
motion and sought to “clarify the extent of his ‘negligence’ claim,” contending that “his
claim is directed towards the prison officials in general because [they] . . . are charged with
the duty of providing a reasonably safe place of confinement.” (Doc. 29 at 4-5).
On July 19, 2016, upon recommendation from Magistrate Judge Martin
Carlson (Doc. 33), this court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to
dismiss. (Docs. 48-49). Defendant’s motion was granted to the extent that Medley’s
complaint claimed medical malpractice, but was denied as to its ordinary negligence claim.
(Id.) The only claim remaining in this action is Medley’s ordinary negligence claim.
Following several notable issues throughout the discovery process related to
Medley’s inability to appropriately and clearly articulate his request for pertinent
documents connected to his claim (Docs. 59, 61-67), Defendant filed a motion for
summary judgment on Medley’s ordinary negligence claim. (Doc. 69). On February 15,
2017, Judge Carlson issued a Report and Recommendation in which he stated that this

2

case “aptly illustrates the procedural hurdles which can confront a pro se litigant in federal
court”—especially an incarcerated inmate proceeding IFP. (Doc. 80 at 1). “Confronted
with an inmate who has struggled to understand discovery procedures, but seems to
consistently convey a need for specific relevant and discoverable information” before
responding to Defendant’s summary judgment motion, Judge Carlson recommended
deferring action on Defendant’s motion to allow further narrowly tailored discovery
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). (Id. at 3, 14).
We agree with the thorough analysis in Judge Carlson’s report and will adopt
it in full; therefore, action on Defendant’s summary judgment motion will be deferred
pending further narrowly tailored discovery. We also believe that appointment of counsel
should be considered at this juncture. Our independent review of the record reveals legal
privacy issues presented by Defendant’s objections to Medley’s requests for TB-related
information from a specific inmate’s medical records who Medley believes was the source
of the TB-outbreak at USP-Canaan, as well as other notable discovery-related issues as
to the breadth of Medley’s discovery requests and his inability to comply with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 59-1 at 2-6). 1 Assistance of counsel may not only be
appropriate, but may alleviate some of the issues presented in Judge Carlson’s report.
Although “indigent civil litigants possess neither a constitutional nor a
statutory right to appointed counsel,” district courts have the “statutory authority to
‘request’ appointed counsel for indigent civil litigants.” Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d
1

This court also notes that the record reveals other issues that have complicated discovery in this
case, such as discovery materials being incorrectly sent to an inmate at Dauphin County Prison
instead of Medley, (Doc. 53), as well as several premature motions by Medley to extend the
discovery deadline, (Docs. 51-52, 57-58). It also appears that because Medley is an inmate, the
delay in his receiving court documents has impacted discovery. For example, despite an order
requiring the parties to provide a discovery status report before November 28, 2016, Medley filed the
status report late “due to an institutional emergency at [USP-Canaan].” (Doc. 63-2 at 2).
3

492, 498 (3d Cir. 2002); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). District courts have “‘broad discretion’ to
determine whether appointment of counsel in a civil case would be appropriate,” and may
make the decision to request counsel sua sponte. Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 498. After it
is determined that a claim has “some arguable merit in fact and law,” a court should
consider a number of factors to determine whether counsel may be necessary. Id. at 499.
In Montgomery, for example, a pro se inmate plaintiff encountered multiple obstacles
during discovery, “both in the resistance of the defendants [to the inmate’s discovery
requests] and in the intricacies of the discovery rules.” Id. at 502. The Third Circuit
concluded that because it “determined that [the inmate’s] case has some potential merit,
and since this case involves complex discovery rules with which [the inmate] was
seemingly unable to comply, we find that [the inmate’s] ability to present his own case is
doubtful, and that this factor weighs in favor of appointing counsel.” Id. As to the
complexity of the issues involved, the court in Montgomery found that the inmate’s inability
to comply “with requirements for formulating discovery requests hindered the presentation
of his claim” and resulted in “numerous technical rulings” against him. Id. at 503.
Here, when appointment of counsel was originally denied in this case, it had
not yet been determined whether Medley’s ordinary negligence claim contained sufficient
merit to survive Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Since that time, however, the record
shows some factual basis, confirmed by the BOP, that there was a TB outbreak at USPCanaan and that Medley later tested positive for latent TB. 2 Moreover, the record

2

For example, a declaration by a registered nurse with the BOP confirms that, in August 2013, USPCanaan “received information of a possible exposure of inmates at the facility to an individual who
tested positive for tuberculosis,” and that the BOP “after receiving this notice . . . promptly took
appropriate measures to identify any additional incidents of exposure as well as provided
appropriate treatment to any inmate in need of preventative care.” (Doc. 63-1 at 26). The
declaration confirms that Medley tested positive for latent TB in October 2013. (Id. at 27).
4

presents some complexity for Medley in navigating discovery issues related to the breadth
of his requests and to the privacy (and potential disclosure) of fellow inmate medical
records—issues which have been appropriately objected to and resisted by Defendant.
The record also presents repeated arguments by Defendant resisting motions by Medley
to compel discovery 3 because of Medley’s failure to file a brief in support of the motion
pursuant to M.D. Pa. Local Rule 7.5, and because Medley, a pro se inmate, did not first
attempt to resolve the dispute with defense counsel before filing the motion, as required
by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1). (See Docs. 61 & 66).
These issues are compounded by the record’s clear indications of Medley’s
inability to present his own case in the form of repeatedly being unable to clearly tailor his
discovery requests to comply with discovery rules. For example, Medley requested “any
and all” BOP “medical records” of a specific inmate “infected with [TB]” who Medley
alleges was the source of the TB outbreak; Defendant vaguely objected to the request
under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a). (Doc. 59-1 at 2). In denying Medley’s request
without prejudice, Judge Carlson reasonably interpreted it as being “for the production of
the entire medical file of another prisoner,” and therefore concluded that the request was
overly broad. (Doc. 62 at 7). The wording of Medley’s discovery request, however, is by
no means clear whether Medley sought “wholesale disclosure” of the entire inmate’s
medical records, as Judge Carlson interpreted the request, or whether Medley intended to
tailor the request in some manner to a redacted form of only TB-related information in the
records. Such inarticulate filings by Medley have plagued this case since its inception
when it was unclear what claims were asserted in Medley’s complaint.
3

Medley’s filing was labeled a “Reply to Defendant’s Motion of Response and Objections to
Plaintiff’s First Request of Production of Documents.” (Doc. 59).
5

Acknowledging these discovery issues, Judge Carlson suggested six more
specific interrogatories and document requests in his report, which may aid Medley when
further narrowly tailored discovery proceeds in this case. (Doc. 80 at 15, ¶ 2). This court
fully agrees with those recommendations, but notes that there may be other areas of
inquiry for which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) may permit discovery.
ACCORDINGLY, this 28th day of March, 2017, upon consideration of
Magistrate Judge Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 80) that Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment (Doc. 69) be DEFERRED pending further narrowly tailored
discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), and, upon independent
review of the record, and noting that no objections have been filed, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 80) is ADOPTED;
(2) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 69) is DEFERRED
pending further narrowly tailored discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56(d);
(3) This case is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Carlson with instructions
to first consider whether appointment of counsel may be appropriate for
Medley, and to next confirm from Medley that he is seeking narrowly
tailored discovery into the following six discrete fields of inquiry:
•

At the time of these events, did the Bureau of Prisons have
protocols or procedures for screening inmates for communicable
diseases like tuberculosis before they entered the prison system,
were transferred from one institution to another, or entered an
inmate population?

6

•

If so, were these procedures followed in this case?

•

Did the BOP identify the source of the outbreak of tuberculosis
that affected Medley and other inmates at USP-Canaan?

•

If so, when was the source of the outbreak identified?

•

Was Medley exposed to the source of this outbreak, either directly
or indirectly, once the source of infection had been identified?

•

What steps, if any, were taken by BOP and prison officials at USPCanaan before and/or after any tuberculosis outbreak to prevent
Medley and other prisoners from exposure to tuberculosis?

(4) If Medley confirms the scope of his discovery demands is limited to these
specific, narrowly tailored and relevant fields of inquiry, or if Medley
submits any other specific and narrowly tailored discovery request
permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), Defendant
should respond to those interrogatories and produce any documents
relevant to these questions.
(5) Upon completion of discovery, the parties should notify the court
regarding whether they wish to further pursue summary judgment, at
which point supplemental briefing can be ordered in light of the additional
completed discovery.
(6) Medley’s motion for extension of time, (Doc. 76), is DISMISSED as moot.

/s/ William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge

7