Gard v. Dooley et al

Filing 191

ORDER denying 190 Objection to Magistrate Judge Order. Claims against all individuals in their individual capacities are dismissed. Claims against other Department of Corrections Staff, Department of Health Staff, and CMB Food Services Employees, unknown at this time, are dismissed. Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 8/1/17. (SLW)

filed
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

REX CARD,

CIV 14-4023

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

BOB DOOLEY,Chief Warden,

in his official capacity;
SUSAN JACOBS, Associate Warden,

in her official capacity;

MURIEL NAMINGA,Laundry Supervisor,
in her official capacity;
ANDRA GATES, Supervisor, DOH,
in her official capacity;
KELLY SWANSON,Supervisor, DOH,
in her official capacity;

*

JENIFER BEMBOOM,CBM Food Service, *

in her official capacity;

*

JOHN TREWIELLAR,CBM Food Service, *

in his official capacity;

*

BARRY SCHROETER,CBM Food Service,*

in his official capacity;
JENIFER STANWICK,Deputy Warden,

in her official capacity;
REBECCA SCHEIFFER, Associate

Warden, in her official capacity;
LELAND TJEERDSMA,Major,
in his official capacity;
TRAVIS TJEERDSMA,Unit Staff,

in his official capacity;
TAMMY DcJONG,Unit Staff,
in her official capacity;
RANDY STEVENS,Property Officer,
in his official capacity;
CORPORAL CROPPER, Corporal,
in his official capacity;
RANDY MILNE, Corrections Officer,

*

0 / 2017
clerk

in his official capacity; and
JESSICA LUKE, Office Staff, DOH,

in her official capacity;
Defendants.

Defendants filed Objections to Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Extend Deadlines,

Doc. 190. The review ofthe Magistrate Juddie's Order Denying Defendants' Motion is a limited
review. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(A)the party seeking reconsideration ofsuch an Order

rder is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Given
must make a showing to this Court that the 0:
that limited scope of review, the Order is n ot clearly erroneous. In addition, the Order is nof
contrary to law.

In looking atthe four factors discussed by the Defendants in their Motion,those four factors
are:

1.
2.
3.

The danger of prejudice for th e nonmoving party;
i
ikential impact on judicial proceedings;
The length of delay and its po
The reason for the delay,including whether it was within the control ofthe
movant; and

4.

Whether the movant acted in kood faith.

The Court is not aware of the extent of danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party if the

deadlines are extended other than the Court Imows that given Plaintiffs limited access to library

facilities, most motions have resulted in Plaintiff asking for significant time extensions. Partly as
a result of that, this case is an old case, having been filed in 2014. The significant factor

pact onjudicial proceedings is that the longer a case
concerning length ofdelay and its potential im]

goes on the more likely there is there will be more motions and more delays, with the resolution
ofthe case being delayed.

The next factor ofthe reason for delay has been set forth in the Order of Judge Duffy and
in
in the Motion for Continuance from the poi t of view from the Defendants. It is the Court's

opinion that the delay was within the control ofthe movant. The fourth factor, whether the movant

acted in good faith, the Court does not question the movant's good faith. However, given this

Court's familiarity with this file together with Judge Duffy's Orders and Defendants' Motion for
Continuance and now Objections to the denial of that continuance, it is this Court's overall
conclusion that there is no good excuse for the late filing and that factor must be given the greatest

weight in this Court's decision. Accordingly, the Objections to Order Denying Defendants'
Motion to Extend Deadlines, Doc. 190, are denied.

The Court will next set this case for trial. In reviewing the case and to put the case in

position for trial, the Court holds that Plaintiffs claim is a proceeding under Title II of the
Americans With Disabilities Act(ADA). See Pennsylvania Department ofCorrections v. Yeskey,
524 U.S. 206 (1998), finding that prisons and local correctional facilities are covered by Title II.
In the present case there are a variety of employees ofthe South Dakota State Prison System that
remain as Defendants in the case,each being sued individually and in their official capacities. Title

11 ofthe ADA does not provide a cause ofaction againstindividuals in their personal capacity,only

"public entities." Alsbrookv. Maumelle, 184 F3d 999,1005 n. 8(8th Cir. 1999). The Court will
construe the claims in the Amended and Supplemental Verified Complaint against Bob Dooley,
Chief Warden,and the other Defendants in their official capacities, to be a claim against the State
ofSouth Dakota and its Sioux Falls prison. Zajrael v. Harmon,677 F.3d 353,354(8th Cir. 2012).
"A suit against state employees in their official capacities is the functional equivalent of a suit
against the State." The claims against all individuals in their individual capacities are dismissed.

The claim against"CBM Food Service Employees, unknown at this time, individual and official
capacity" is dismissed. CMB and its employees are food service contractors and do not represent
the State of South Dakota. The Amended and Supplemental Verified Complaint also lists "Other

Department of Corrections Staff, Department of Health Staff, and CBM Food Services Staff who
are unknown to me at this time, and are sued individually and in their official capacities." No
individuals have been named and no claim has thus been made and those unknown persons are
dismissed from the case.

Next, with regard to compensatory damages, the Court notes for purposes of trial

preparation that Plaintiffhas to prove that the Defendant State ofSouth Dakota through its official
capacity representatives acted with discriminatory intent for Plaintiff to recover compensatory

damages. Meagley v. City ofLittle Rock, 639 F.3d 384, 389 (8th Cir. 2011), Love v. Westville
Correctional Center, 103 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 1996). Next, the Court notes that the United States

Supreme Court has held that punitive damages may not be awarded under Title II of the ADA.
Barnes V. Gorman,536 U.S. 181, 189-91 (2002). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:
1.

That Defendants' Objections to Order Denying Defendants' Motion to
Extend Deadlines, Doc. 190, are denied.

2.

That the claims against all individuals in their individual capacities are
dismissed.

3.

That the claims against other Department ofCorrections Staff, Department
ofHealth Staff, and CMB Food Services Employees,unknown at this time,
are dismissed.

4.

That no punitive damages can be awarded under Title II of the Americans
With Disabilities Act and the punitive damages claim is dismissed.

5.

That a separate Order for Trial will next be entered.

\6C
Dated this \ day of August, 2017.
"
BY THE COURT:

9\}
Lawrence L. Piersol

United States District Judge

ATTEST:
Ci^tiKK
JOSEPH HAAS,CLERK

BY:

Deputy

v

/)