GREEN v. BURKHART et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 206 Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Claims Against John Doe/Miller as Admitted. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 7/7/2017. (eet)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN HAGGERTY, JOHN GILARA,
DANIEL PACK, JOHN CHILES, and
MEMORANDUM ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM CLAIMS
AGAINST JOHN DOE/MILLER AS ADMITTED (DOC. NO. 206)
At the Pretrial Conference on June 29, 2017, Plaintiff Tyrone Green presented a Motion
to Deem Claims Against John Doe/Miller as Admitted, which the Court accepted for filing on
the ECF system. Doc. No. 206. Defense Counsel reviewed the one-page motion at the
conference and the following day filed Objections to Plaintiff’s Request to Enter Judgment
Against Doe Defendant “Officer Miller.” Doc. No. 203.
Plaintiff asserts that “prison officials purposefully concealed the identity” of an
individual originally named as a “John Doe” Defendant in the first Amended Complaint. Doc.
No. 206, Doc. No. 9. In discovery, Plaintiff was provided with video relevant to his claim
against “Officer Miller” and several statements written by prison officials regarding the incident
relevant to this claim. Doc. No. 203. In his Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff identified this
John Doe Defendant as “Officer Miller.” Doc. No. 65. Plaintiff never explains how he derived
at “Officer Miller” as the John Doe Defendant.1
In his original administrative grievances related to this claim, Plaintiff had specifically requested the identity of
two officers. Defendant Chernosky was identified, but the other officer has never been identified. Plaintiff’s Trial
In January 2017, after Magistrate Judge Baxter ordered Plaintiff to submit service
instructions to the United States Marshal, Defense Counsel endeavored to identify “Officer
Miller” by searching the duty roster at the prison, finding that there were seven (7) individuals
with the last name Miller employed, but that none of them were working on the date of the
incident. Doc. No. 203. Defense Counsel advised Plaintiff to provide more information so that
the John Doe/Miller Defendant could be properly identified. Id. Plaintiff failed to do so.
It is the Plaintiff’s burden, not Defense Counsel’s, to identify unnamed defendants by
seeking information in discovery. See Veteto v. Miller, 829 F. Supp. 1486, 1497 (M.D. Pa.
1992). In discovery, Defense Counsel provided substantial information to Plaintiff, who failed to
either identify the individual from the discovery given or to request more information.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Claims Against John Doe/Miller as Admitted is
SO ORDERED, this 7th day of July, 2017,
s/Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge
All ECF Registered Counsel of Record
1600 Walters Mill Road
Somerset, PA 15510
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?