Scott v. Haynes et al

Filing 52

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 50 Motion.. Signed by Chief Judge Roberto A. Lange on 6/4/2024. Delivered to USM via email and La'Shane Donyale Scott via usps. (SLT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LA'SHANE DONYALE SCOTT,

4:23-CV-04115-RAL

Plaintiff,
vs.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART

DR. AARON HAYNES,Chief Medical Official;
KAYLA TINKER, Medical Trainer/Supervisor;
KELLIE WASKO,Secretary ofthe Dept. of
Corrections; SGT LEONARD MOORE,Officer
In Charge; OFFICER JACOB HALEY,
Corrections Officer; OFFICER ELEHRST,
Corrections Officer; OFFICER BRADLEY
VANBLARICOM,Corrections Officer;
OFFICER KOCOUREK,Corrections Officer;
CHIEF WARDEN TERESA BITTINGER,
Chief Warden; UNIT COORDINATOR

ROBINSON,Unit Coordinator; CHEF TANYA,
of Aramark; ARAMARK CO.; UNIT
COORDINATOR ANGELA PECHOUS;
HEALTH SERVICE STAFF MEMBER

ALEXIS; MELISSA MATURAN,ADA

Coordinator/Corrections Specialist;
ASSOCIATE WARDEN RICK

JOHNSTON,Associate Warden ofthe State of
South Dakota Department of Corrections; SGT.
JAKE ROHWER,Correctional Officer ofthe
State of South Dakota Department of
Corrections; UNIT MANAGER DAREK

EKEREN,Unit Manager ofthe South Dakota
Department of Corrections; UNIT MANAGER
TROY ELLIS, Unit Manager ofthe South
Dakota Department of Corrections; UNIT
MANAGER CODY HANSON,Unit Manager

of the South Dakota Department of Corrections;
JEANNIE BERTSCH,Prison Official ofthe

South Dakota Department of Corrections; UNIT
COORDINATOR NICOLE MAYER,Unit
Coordinator at the Department of Corrections;

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ASSISTANCE
WITH SERVICE

RYAN LANDON,Medical

Supervisor/Leadership; CLINICIAN DIRECT
RESPONSIBLE; JOHN DOE/JANE DOE,

Health Service Staff Directly Responsible at the
South Dakota Department of Corrections;
NURSE SARAH,Health Service Nurse ofthe

State of South Dakota Department of
Corrections; JOHN DOE,Aramark Food Service

Company Chief Supervisors; and LINDA, Of
Aramark
Defendants.

Plaintiff La'Shane Donyale Scott, an inmate at Mike Durfee State Prison, filed a pro see

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. Scott filed an amended complaint. Doc. 20, which
this Court screened in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Doe. 27. In the 1915A Screening

Opinion and Order, this Court dismissed in part Scott's amended complaint and directed service
on the defendants who remained after screening. Id Scott has filed two "Briefs in Support of
Motion for Assisted Service," Docs. 29,40, and a "Motion for Assistance with Service," Doc. 50.
For the reasons stated below, Scott's motion for assistance with service is granted in part and
denied in part.

I.

Standard for Directing Assistance with Service
Courts in the District ofSouth Dakota have entered orders to assist pro se inmates to perfect

service on defendants who remained after the Court's 1915A screening when the plaintiff is able

to demonstrate that he has diligently attempted to complete service but is unable to do because of

logistical hurdles and Department of Corrections(DOC)policies that restrict an inmate's ability
to gather personal information about DOC current and former employees.

Hicks v. Renner,

4:23-CV-04121-KES, Doc. 16(D.S.D. Feb. 8, 2024); Christians v. Young.4;20-CV-04083-LLP,
2023 WL 2687260, *13(D.S.D. Mar. 29,2023); Hughbanks v. Fluke. 4:21-CV-04167-KES,2023

WL 1930334, at *1-2 (D.S.D. Feb. 10, 2023); Codv v. Clark. 4:22-CV-04010-KES, 2023 WL

112695, at *7(D.S.D. Jan. 5, 2023)(citing Hansen v. S.D. Den't of Corr.. 4:19-CV-04019-KES,

Docket 44 at 4)). As Scott notes, this Court has previously granted his request for assistance in
serving current and former employees of the DOC in another case he has pending in the District
of South Dakota. See Scott v. Carpenter. 4:23-CV-04020-RAL, Doc. 48 (D.S.D. Aug. 28, 2023).

II.

Scott's Request for Assistance with Service

According to Scott's motion for assistance with service. Doc. 50, seven defendants remain
unserved: Nurse Alexis, Nurse Sarah, Directly Responsible Clinician, Unit Coordinator Robinson,

Linda of Aramark, Chef Tanya of Aramark, and the Aramark Chief Supervisors.^ Id at 1.
A.

Unit Coordinator Robinson

The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) was unable to serve Unit Coordinator Robinson

because he no longer works for the DOC. Doc. 36 at 25. This Court orders counsel who has

appeared on behalf of the served Defendants to provide the last knovm address for Unit
Coordinator Robinson to the USMS for service by June 14, 2024. The Clerk of Court is directed
to redact Unit Coordinator Robinson's address from the return of service before it is filed and to

provide redacted copies to Scott. See, e.g.. Allen v. Siddiqui. 2008 WL 2217363, at *1—2(W.D.
Ky. May 27, 2008)(recognizing that when the USMS is directed to effect service the court can
have the agency that previously employed the defendant file his last known address under seal);
Skinner v. Beemer. 2007 WL 2982419, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 11, 2007)("Although the Court is

disinclined to provide Defendant['s]... home address to the Plaintiff, it would be appropriate to
direct [his former employer] to provide his last known address to the Court in camera, subject to

'In his amended complaint, Scott named Aramark Co. as a defendant. Doc. 20 at 1, and this
Court directed service on Aramark, Doc. 27 at 64. Thus, the Court construes Scott's motion to
seek assistance with serving Aramark Co. rather than the Aramark Chief Supervisors.

a protective order that it will not be provided to the Plaintiff himself."); Kowalski v. Stewart. 220
F.R.D. 599, 600 (D. Ariz. 2004)(stating that releasing a former correctional officer's personal
information to an inmate would jeopardize his personal safety). The Court also requests that
counsel for the served Defendants provide Unit Coordinator Robinson's first name when counsel
provides his last known address to the USMS.
B.

Nurse Alexis and Nurse Sarah

The DOC would not accept service on behalf of Nurse Sarah and Nurse Alexis. Doc. 36
at 16-18, 22-24. Melissa Maturan, who accepted service on behalf ofthe DOC employees, does
not know who Nurse Sarah and Nurse Alexis are. Doe.48 at 4-6,13-15. Scott seems to question

the veracity of these statements. Doe. 50, but the DOC's motion for extension of time to answer
establishes that if the DOC was able to identify a named defendant who is currently employed by

the DOC,the DOC accepted service even if the defendant's name was misspelled or incomplete.
See Doc. 43. Scott's motion for assistance with serving Nurse Alexis and Nurse Sarah is denied

without prejudice. Once Scott can fully identify these defendants, he may renew his motion for
assistance with service.
C.

Aramark Defendants

Scott requests that the Court direct the DOC to assist him in serving employees ofAramark
and Aramark. The DOC has informed the USMS that the DOC is not authorized to accept service

of process on behalfof Aramark. See Doc. 36 at 7-15; Doc.48 at 1—3,7—9,16-18. Indeed, when
Aramark or its employees are named as defendants in cases arising out of Aramark's contract with
the DOC, the South Dakota Attorney General's Office does not represent Aramark. Rather,

Aramark and its employees and the DOC and its employees have separate representation. Thus,
Scott's motion for assistance with serving Aramark and its employees,Linda and Tanya,is denied.

D.

Health Services Direct Clinician

The USMS was unable to serve "Direct Clinician, Health Services" because Melissa

Maturan, who accepted service on behalf ofthe DOC,does not who this person is. Doc.48 at 1921. This Court construes Scott's motion for assistance with serving "Direct Clinician, Health

Services," as a request for assistance in identifying an unknown defendant, which is denied. If
Scott does not have means to identify the "Direct Clinician, Health Services" at this point of the

proceedings, he may attempt to do so through discovery if and when the case reaches the stage at
which discovery is permissible.
III.

Scott's Request to Correct the Caption

In his second brief requesting assistanee with service, Scott notes that his initial pleadings

misspelled the last name oftwo defendants. Doe.40 at 1-2. Specifically, Scott has become aware
that the correct spelling of the last name for defendant Officer Elehrs is Elehrst. Id at 1-2.
According to Scott, the correct spelling of the last name for defendant Officer Keroeska is
Kocourek. Id at 2. This Court previously granted Scott's motion to correct the spelling of
defendant Officer Kerouska to Offieer Kocourek. Doc. 38. This Court now grants Scott's motion

to correct the spelling of defendant Offieer Elehrs to Officer Elehrst. Further, the Court notes that
when the defendants who have been served moved for an extension oftime to answer,their motion

informed the Court that some of the other defendants' names had been misspelled and provided

the correct spelling and complete names for the defendants the DOC had identified. Docket 43.
For the sake of clarity as this case proeeeds, this Court has amended the eaption to conform with
the Court's orders granting Scott's motions to correct spelling of defendants' names and to

correctly identify the defendants based on the information provided by the DOC in the defendants'
motion for extension oftime to answer. Doc. 43.

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Scott's motion for assistance with service, Doc. 50, is granted in part and

denied in part. It is further
ORDERED that counsel who has appeared on behalf ofthe served Defendants, Doc. 42,

must provide the full name and last known address for Unit Coordinator Robinson to the USMS
by June 14,2024. It is further
ORDERED that the USMS must insert Unit Coordinator Robinson's first name and last

known address on the completed summons that the was reissued and delivered to the USMS on
June 3, 2024. S^ Doc. 51. The USMS must then serve the completed summons,together with
Docs. 1,1-1, 1-2, 5,6,9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 18-1, 19, 19-1, 20,21, 21-1, 22, 22-1, 23, 23-1, 24,

24-1, 25,26, and this order upon Defendant Robinson. The Clerk of Court is directed to deliver
a copy ofthis order to the USMS. It is further
ORDERED that because Scott's motion for assistance with service was denied in part, it

is not necessary for the USMS at this time to attempt to serve the other summonses that were
reissued and delivered to the USMS on June 3, 2024. See Doc. 51. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to redact Defendant Robinson's last known

address from the summons,return of service, and USM-285 form before they are filed and to

provide redacted copies to Scott. Defendant Robinson's address must not appear in any publicly
available filing or any filing or pleading provided to Scott. It is further
ORDERED that Unit Coordinator Robinson will serve and file an answer or responsive

pleading to the complaint and amended complaint on or before 21 days following the date of
service. It is finally

ORDERED that the caption is amended as provided in this Order to conform to the

Court's Orders granting Scott's motions to correct spelling of Defendants' names and to

correctly identify the Defendants based on the information provided by the DOC in the
Defendants' motion for extension of time to answer, Doc. 43.
DATED June

2024.

BY THE COURT:

ROBERTO A. LANGI
CHIEF JUDGE