Drummond v. Spartanburg County et al

Filing 110

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 72 Motion for a $1 Million Liability Cap; denying 78 Motion for Discovery; denying 79 Motion to Compel; denying 83 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 83 Motion for Extension of Time; denying 83 Motion for Issuance of Subpoena; granting in part and denying in part 86 Motion for Punitive Damages and Against a Municipality. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 5/23/2016. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Edward Drummond, #367456,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Major Neal Urch, Director; County
Attorney Virginia DuPont; Asley McCann;
Sgt. Thomas, Nurse White; and Dr.
McDonalds,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.

5:15-cv-04285-MGL-KDW

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This matter is before the court on the following Motions of Plaintiff: Motion for a $1 Million
Liability Cap, ECF No. 72; Motion for Discovery, ECF No. 78; Motion to Compel, ECF No. 79;
Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint, ECF No. 83; and Motion for Punitive Damages and
Against a Municipality, ECF No. 86. The undersigned will address each of Plaintiff’s Motions in
turn.
A. Plaintiff’s Motion for a $1 Million Liability Cap, ECF No. 72
In his Motion, Plaintiff requests that the court add Dr. McDonald as a Defendant to this
action. ECF No. 72 at 1. Additionally, Plaintiff requests a $1 million liability cap and cites to
certain sections of the South Carolina Code. Id. In Response, Defendant McDonald represents
that he has already filed an answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint where he denied all allegations. ECF
No. 85. Additionally, Defendant McDonald objects to Plaintiff’s Motion for a $1 Million Cap.
See id.

1

The portion of Plaintiff’s Motion seeking to add Dr. McDonald as a Defendant is denied
as moot because he is already a party to this action who has made an appearance. To the extent
Plaintiff is alleging $1 million in damages, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion. However, Plaintiff
is advised that while he is allowed to allege certain damages the court is making no ruling at this
time on his request regarding a “$1 million liability cap.” Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No.
72, is granted in part and denied in part.
B. Motion for Discovery, ECF No. 78
On April 10, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Discovery. ECF No. 78. Defendants did
not file a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion. In his Motion, Plaintiff requests “full discovery
material and interrogatories. . . .” Id. The nature of Plaintiff’s request is unclear. Plaintiff is
required to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) pertaining to discovery.
Specifically, Plaintiff is directed to review and comply with the requirements of Rules 33 and 34
of the FRCP. Plaintiff is instructed that he should not seek the court’s involvement in discovery
unless and until a dispute arises between the parties concerning discovery. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
Motion, ECF No. 78, is denied.
C. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 79
On April 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to “compel court to take action for contemp[t]
and or perjury on Ashley McCann due to [an] unethical report.” ECF No. 79. Defendants, with
the exception of Defendant McDonald, responded and represent that they are “unaware of any
sworn document submitted to the Court from [Defendant McCann] which would be the basis of
Plaintiff’s assertion that she has lied or perjured herself.” ECF No. 89. Defendant McDonald also
responded to Plaintiff’s Motion “[o]ut of an abundance of caution” and represents that he is not
“involved in the matters under consideration.” ECF No. 90.
2

It appears to the court that a factual dispute has arisen between Plaintiff’s version of
events that occurred in 2013 and Defendants’ version of events. Without opining or ruling on
whether this dispute concerns a matter in this case, the court advises Plaintiff that it is noting his
disagreement concerning the attachment to his Motion. However, Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No.
79, is otherwise denied.
D. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint, ECF No. 83
On April 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting additional time, five extra days, to
serve the five parties with a copy of the subpoena. ECF No. 83. Additionally, Plaintiff moves to
amend his Complaint in order to assert new allegations against Defendants. See id. Finally,
Plaintiff requests two subpoenas. Id. at 4.
Defendant McDonald responded to Plaintiff’s Motion and objects to the portion of
Plaintiff’s Motion where he requests to amend his Complaint because Defendant McDonald has
already filed an answer and moved for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 99. Defendant McDonald
represents that the portion of Plaintiff’s Motion directed at the issuance of subpoenas to Dr.
Edmond Higgins and others “is untimely and will not lead to the discovery of any relevant
evidence related to Dr. McDonald.” Id. at 2.
The portion of Plaintiff’s Motion requesting additional time to serve Defendants copies of
subpoenas is granted. However, the portion of Plaintiff’s Motion requesting to amend his
Complaint is denied. The deadline for filing an amendment to his Complaint ended on March 23,
2016. See ECF No. 45. Furthermore, Plaintiff is asserting allegations against a non-party to this
action which appear to be an entirely separate matter. Moreover, Defendant McDonald has
already filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in this matter. See ECF No. 68. Consequently, the
portion of Plaintiff’s Motion requesting issuance of subpoenas is also denied because the
3

information Plaintiff seeks is irrelevant to the causes of action in his Complaint. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. 45, is granted to the extent he seeks additional time to serve
Defendants with copies of subpoena he has already served and denied to the extent he seeks to
amend his Complaint and serve additional subpoenas.
E. Plaintiff’s Motion for Punitive Damages and Against a Municipality, ECF No. 86.
On April 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for punitive damages and a “motion against a
municipality.” ECF No. 86. Defendant McDonald filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion on May
12, 2016. ECF No. 103. To the extent Plaintiff is alleging he is entitled to punitive damages, the
court grants Plaintiff’s motion. However, Plaintiff is advised that while he is allowed to allege
certain damages the court is making no ruling at this time on his request regarding punitive
damages. Plaintiff’s Motion against a municipality is denied for vagueness. Further, to the
extent Plaintiff requests to sue a municipality, this request is denied as untimely. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. 86, is granted in part and denied in part.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 23, 2016
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge

4