Nesbitt v. Riley et al
Filing
74
ORDER denying 47 MOTION to Amend/Correct, 51 MOTION to Appoint Counsel, 52 MOTION to Appoint Counsel, 53 MOTION for Disclosure, MOTION for Discovery, MOTION Rule 26(f) Conference, 62 MOTION to Appoint Counsel, MOTION to Amend/Correct, MOTION for Examination by Outside Doctor, 63 MOTION to Appoint Counsel, 68 MOTION for Discovery, 70 MOTION to Amend/Correct; granting in part and denying in part 57 MOTION to Amend/Correct; and granting 45 MOTION to Amend/Correct. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J Gossett on 4/1/2015. (gmil)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Brian Keith Nesbitt,
Plaintiff,
v.
Tim Riley, Warden; Bryan P. Stirling, Director
of the Department of Corrections; Amy
Spencer; Dr. J.R. Bearden; DHO Richard
Turner; Laura Caldwell; Lt. Lawson, Safty;
Admin Captain Nance; Gary Lane; Investigator
Lane; Karen McMorris; Cap. Jennette Glen;
Lt. Jason Webber; Major James Parris; Captain
Cathy Duncan; Dr. T. Byrne,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No. 0:14-2788-RMG-PJG
ORDER
Plaintiff Brian Keith Nesbitt, a self-represented state prisoner, filed this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. This matter is before the court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) on a multitude of motions
filed by Nesbitt.
I.
Motions to Amend/Correct or Supplement Complaint (ECF Nos. 45, 47, 57, 62, & 70).
Nesbitt’s first motion to amend (ECF No. 45) does not appear to add new defendants or
claims. Rather, Nesbitt appears to provide additional details in support of the existing allegations
in his Second Amended Complaint. The defendants consent to Nesbitt’s motion. Accordingly,
Nesbitt’s motion to amend is granted. In order to preserve issues raised in this case and give liberal
construction to the pleadings, the Clerk of Court is directed to create a new docket entry for the Third
Amended Complaint and append the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 26) as an attachment
Page 1 of 7
to the Third Amended Complaint. Furthermore, because Nesbitt’s Third Amended Complaint does
not add defendants or claims, the defendants’ request to allow their Answer to the Second Amended
Complaint to serve as their answer to Nesbitt’s Third Amended Complaint is granted.
Nesbitt filed a second motion to amend (ECF No. 47) in which he likewise does not appear
to add new defendants or claims, but rather merely reiterates facts pled in his initial Complaint and
subsequent amendments. Therefore, this document is more appropriately considered as a brief in
support of Nesbitt’s claims. Additionally, the defendants filed a response in opposition to Nesbitt’s
motion. Accordingly, this motion is denied as futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962).
Nesbitt also filed a motion to supplement his complaint. (ECF No. 57.) In his motion,
Nesbitt presents additional facts—specifically a February 27, 2015 medical encounter—that have
occurred since initiating this matter and that pertain to his claim of denial of medical treatment for
injuries sustained in a South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) vehicle accident. The
defendants did not respond to Nesbitt’s motion. Accordingly, Nesbitt’s motion is granted as to his
supplemental facts in connection with his claim of denial of medical treatment. However, any other
requested relief included in Nesbitt’s motion—including Nesbitt’s request to add additional
defendants1—is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to create a new docket entry for the
Supplemental Complaint.
Nesbitt’s additional motions to amend/correct are untimely pursuant to the deadlines
established by the court’s Scheduling Order (ECF No. 42). Nesbitt has offered no cause to extend
1
The court previously denied Nesbitt’s motion to amend to the extent he intended to add
Mrs. Grubbs as a defendant because his allegations against Grubbs did not arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence as his civil rights claims against the original defendants. (See Order, ECF
No. 25 at 2 n.2.) In the current motion, Nesbitt has failed to raise any specific allegations with regard
to either of the defendants he seeks to add.
Page 2 of 7
the expired deadlines. See Nourison Rug Corp. v. Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295, 298 (4th Cir. 2008)
(“[A]fter the deadlines provided by a scheduling order have passed, the good cause standard must
be satisfied to justify leave to amend the pleadings.”). Furthermore, the court finds that justice does
not require the proposed amendment under Rule 15(a)(2). Accordingly, Nesbitt’s motions to
amend/correct his Second Amended Complaint are denied. (ECF Nos. 62 & 70.)
II.
Motions for Examinations and to Expunge Record Entries (ECF Nos. 47 & 62).
Nesbitt repeatedly asks for examination outside of SCDC, (see, e.g., ECF Nos. 47 & 62),
presumably to prove his injuries from the incident at issue in this matter. Rule 35 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure does not appear to contemplate the plaintiff seeking an examination of
himself. Further, Nesbitt cannot demonstrate good cause for the evaluation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 35;
Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1304 (10th Cir. 1997) (holding that a Rule 35 motion for a mental
examination is not the proper vehicle to obtain medical care and raise claims of deliberate
indifference to a plaintiff’s medical needs).
Moreover, Nesbitt does not identify the source of any funds to pay for this evaluation. To
the extent he requests that it be performed at public expense, such a request must be denied. See
United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976) (“The established rule is that the expenditure
of public funds is proper only when authorized by Congress, not that public funds may be expended
unless prohibited by Congress.”); Boring v. Kozakiewicz, 833 F.2d 468 (3d Cir. 1987) (upholding
the district court’s denial of a civil plaintiff’s request for funds to pay an expert medical witness and
observing that neither 28 U.S.C. § 1915 nor any other authority provides for such funding). For all
of the foregoing reasons, Nesbitt’s motions for an examination outside of SCDC are denied.
Page 3 of 7
Additionally, Nesbitt appears to request that the court expunge disciplinary reports and
incident reports from his SCDC record. To the extent Nesbitt seeks expungement of disciplinary
convictions for the purpose of reinstating a loss of credit for good conduct, relief under section 1983
is unavailable. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (holding that habeas corpus is
the exclusive remedy for a prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks
immediate or speedier release). To the extent that Nesbitt challenges his disciplinary proceedings
and seeks relief from the court pursuant to § 1983, for the reasons stated above, his motion to add
additional claims or relief is untimely pursuant to the Scheduling Order in this case. Accordingly,
Nesbitt’s motion is denied.
III.
Motions for Initial Disclosures and Subpoenas (ECF Nos. 53 & 68).
Nesbitt appears to move for a discovery conference pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure as well as for the defendants to provide him with initial disclosures and
documents pursuant to Rules 26(a)(1) and (2).
However, unless otherwise ordered, such
requirements are waived due to Nesbitt’s pro se status pursuant to the Federal Civil Rules and Local
Civil Rules of this court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B) (exempting from initial disclosure prisoner
pro se actions); Local Civil Rule 16.00(B) n.8 (D.S.C.) (“[I]t is the general practice in this District
to waive the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference requirement when a party is proceeding pro se.”).
Accordingly, Nesbitt’s motions for a discovery conference and initial disclosures are denied.
Nesbitt also appears to request subpoenas to compel the attendance of the defendants at a
deposition. Discovery in civil cases filed in this court is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. These rules are applicable to all litigants including those who are proceeding pro se.
According to Rule 26(b)(1), “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that
Page 4 of 7
is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Except under certain circumstances in which leave of
the court is required, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(2), a party may take an oral deposition of another
party without leave of the court by serving written notice on the opposing party. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 30. The deponent’s attendance may be compelled by subpoena pursuant to Rule 45.
The court’s authorization of a subpoena requested by an in forma pauperis plaintiff is subject
to limitations, including the relevance of the information sought as well as the burden and expense
to a person subject to the subpoena. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) & 45(c)(1). The court notes that,
although the plaintiff has been granted in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d),
such status does not mean that the plaintiff’s discovery expenses are underwritten or waived. See
Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 604 (M.D. Pa. 1991) (holding that an indigent plaintiff seeking
issuance of a subpoena must simultaneously tender the witness fees and the estimated mileage
allowed by law with the service of the subpoena); see also Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 159 (3d Cir.
1993) (“There is no provision in [28 U.S.C. § 1915] for the payment by the government of the costs
of deposition transcripts, or any other litigation expenses, and no other statute authorizes courts to
commit federal monies for payment of the necessary expenses in a civil suit brought by an indigent
litigant.”). Nesbitt is advised that subpoenas for the attendance at a deposition cannot be enforced
without proper prepayment of the appropriate witness and mileage fees. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(b)(1). Further, Nesbitt has made no indication that he has properly provided notice to the
defendants pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, Nesbitt
has made no showing as to how any of the testimony he seeks is relevant to his claims and therefore
within the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly,
Page 5 of 7
to the extent Nesbitt seeks subpoenas to command attendance at a deposition, his motion is denied
without prejudice.
Nesbitt also appears to seek the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum as to the named
defendants pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, document
production as to party defendants is properly conducted pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Nesbitt is advised that he does not need specific authorization from the court to
obtain discovery from the defendants. Rather, he should direct his discovery requests to the counsel
of record for the defendants. If additional time is needed, Nesbitt may seek an extension of time.
Further, if Nesbitt is dissatisfied with the responses he receives from the defendants, he may then
file a motion to compel. See Local Civil Rule 37.01 (D.S.C.). Thus, Nesbitt’s motion for subpoenas
duces tecum is denied.
IV.
Motions to appoint counsel (ECF Nos. 51, 52, , 62, & 63).
There is no right to appointed counsel in § 1983 cases. Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295 (5th
Cir. 1975). The court may use its discretion to request counsel to represent an indigent in a civil
action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490
U.S. 296 (1989). However, such discretion “should be allowed only in exceptional cases.” Cook
v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975). Whether exceptional circumstances are present
depends on the type and complexity of the case, and the pro se litigant’s ability to prosecute it.
Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard, 490 U.S.
296.
Upon review of the file, the court has determined that there are no exceptional or unusual
circumstances presented at this time, nor would Nesbitt be denied due process if the court denied his
Page 6 of 7
request for counsel. Id. Accordingly, Nesbitt’s motions requesting counsel under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(1) are denied.
V.
Motion for Summary Judgment and Declaratory Judgment (ECF No. 62).
Nesbitt filed a pleading entitled “Declaration” in which he appears to argue that he is entitled
to summary judgment and a declaratory judgment. (ECF No. 62.) In response to this motion, the
defendants request that, to the extent the court construes this motion as seeking summary judgment
or a declaratory judgment, their deadline for filing a response be extended until April 28, 2015—the
deadline for filing dispositive motions. The defendants’ request for an extension of time is hereby
granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 1, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina
____________________________________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 7 of 7
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?