Gary v. Powers et al

Filing 58

ORDER. Defendants are directed to file a status report by September 28, 2011 indicating: (1) whether Plaintiff is currently in the custody of the SCDC; (2) the last date Plaintiff was in custody of or housed at the SCDC; (3) w hen Plaintiff was transferred from the SCDC's custody and/or housing; (4) to where Plaintiff was transferred; and (5) whether Defendants have any knowledge as to Plaintiff's current location. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 9/14/2011. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
William Keith Gary,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Larry Powers, Warden; and Dr. S.
Bianco, M.D.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:11-353-TLW-SVH

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, was a pretrial detainee
incarcerated at the Spartanburg County Detention Center (“SCDC”) at the time he filed
his complaint on February 15, 2011.

He brought this action against Larry Powers,

Warden of SCDC, and Dr. S. Bianco, M.D., a doctor at SCDC, alleging violations of 42
U.S.C. § 1983. This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to stay [Entry
#21]. Plaintiff’s motion states “I am in transit and unable to co[m]petently represent
myself at this time. I have no idea where I’ll be one day [un]til the next.” Id. Defendants
have not responded to the motion to stay.
Since Plaintiff filed the motion to stay, the Clerk of Court’s office has continued to
mail all case-related documents to Plaintiff’s prior addresses [Entry #18, #24, #38] and
they have all been returned as undeliverable. [Entry #23, #32, #40]. Defendants have
now moved for summary judgment [Entry #41, #46]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se,
the court entered orders pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975),
advising him of the importance of a motion for summary judgment and of the need for

him to file an adequate response. [Entry #42, #47]. The Roseboro orders were mailed to
Plaintiff [Entry #43, #48] and were also returned as undeliverable [Entry #53, #56].
A search for Plaintiff on the incarcerated inmate search page of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections’ (“DOC”) website reveals that Plaintiff’s sentence start date
was March 10, 2011, but shows only a blank space for Plaintiff’s location. It appears to
the court that the DOC has not provided Plaintiff with an address at which he can reliably
be contacted by the court.

Additionally, it appears that Defendants had custody of

Plaintiff the last time he contacted the court. Therefore, Defendants are directed to file a
status report by September 28, 2011 indicating: (1) whether Plaintiff is currently in the
custody of the SCDC; (2) the last date Plaintiff was in the custody of or housed at the
SCDC; (3) when Plaintiff was transferred from the SCDC’s custody and/or housing; (4)
to where Plaintiff was transferred; and (5) whether Defendants have any knowledge as to
Plaintiff’s current location.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

September 14, 2011
Florence, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2