Medley v. United States of America

Filing 91

MEMORANDUM ORDER - IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. On or before November 17, 2017, the defendant shall produce for in camera inspection by the court all information in its possession, custody or control which is sought by Medley. 2. In the meanwhile we will STAY further consideration of the summary judgment motion (Doc. 69) at this time pending the in camera review of this evidence. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on October 18, 2017. (kjn)

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
(Judge Caldwell)

(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This pro se civil rights action was first brought by Louis Medley, a federal
inmate, through the filing of a complaint on June 29, 2015. (Doc. 1.) Liberally
construed, in his complaint Medley alleged that prison officials negligently failed to
follow their own protocol for screening inmates for tuberculosis and placed a
tubercular inmate in Medley’s prison housing unit, exposing him to tuberculosis, which
he contracted in a latent form. (Id., ¶ 12.) While the ultimate merit of Medley’s claims
remained to be litigated, and is the subject of a pending summary judgment motion,
(Doc. 69), Medley struggled to advance proper discovery in this case and litigate these
claims. Given the challenges which Medley faced in trying to articulate his claims and
discovery demands, and the arguable merit of those claims, we conditionally appointed
counsel in this case and directed the Pro Bono panel of the Middle District of
Pennsylvania Chapter of the Federal Bar Association to notify us if counsel had been
1

located who could assist Medley. (Doc. 86.)
We have now been informed that no volunteer counsel is willing and available
to assist Medley. Accordingly, the order conditionally appointing counsel in this case
is WITHDRAWN and Medley is notified he must pursue this litigation without the
assistance of appointed counsel.
We note that this court previously identified the following categories of
information which would be relevant to Medley’s claims: (1) whether there were
protocols or procedures for screening inmate for communicable diseases like
tuberculous before they enter the prison system or are transferred from one institutions
to another; (2) whether those procedures were followed in this case; (3) whether and
when the Bureau of Prisons identified the source of the outbreak; (4) whether Medley
was exposed to tuberculosis after the source of the infection was identified; and (5)
what steps, if any, were taken to prevent exposure by the plaintiff and other prisoners
to tuberculosis.(Doc. 80, p.3.) Medley’s filings indicate that he, too, is seeking this
information so that he may respond to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment
and ascertain whether his case has merit.(Doc. 88.) Therefore, we are going to treat
Medley’s filings both as discovery requests for this information and as a Rule 56(d)
request to defer resolution of this summary judgment motion, pending receipt of this
discovery.
2

Construing these filings in this manner we are mindful of the fact that: “‘ “[I]t
is well established that a court ‘is obliged to give a party opposing summary judgment
an adequate opportunity to obtain discovery ” ’ Doe v. Abington Friends Sch., 480
F.3d 252, 257 (3d Cir.2007) (quoting Dowling v. City of Phila., 855 F.2d 136, 139 (3d
Cir.1988)).” Shelton v. Bledsoe, 775 F.3d 554, 565 (3d Cir. 2015). Further, “[i]f
discovery is incomplete, a district court is rarely justified in granting summary
judgment, unless the discovery request pertains to facts that are not material to the
moving party's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.” Shelton v. Bledsoe, 775
F.3d 554, 568 (3d Cir. 2015). We also recognize that the defendant has not provided
Medley and the court with a status report regarding the discovery provided to the
plaintiff, as we had directed the defendant to do on September 19, 2017. (Doc. 89.)
Accordingly, in consideration of all of these matters, IT IS ORDERED as
follows:
1.

On or before November 17, 2017, the defendant shall produce for in
camera inspection by the court all information in its possession, custody
or control which is sought by Medley and is responsive to the following
requests for information: (1) whether there were protocols or procedures
for screening inmate for communicable diseases like tuberculous before
they enter the prison system or are transferred from one institutions to
3

another; (2) whether those procedures were followed in this case; (3)
whether and when the Bureau of Prisons identified the source of the
outbreak; (4) whether Medley was exposed to tuberculosis after the
source of the infection was identified; and (5) what steps, if any, were
taken to prevent exposure by the plaintiff and other prisoners to
tuberculosis.
2.

In the meanwhile we will STAY further consideration of the summary
judgment motion (Doc. 69) at this time pending the in camera review of
this evidence.

SO ORDERED this 18th day of October, 2017.

/s/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

4