Maguire v. Patterson

Filing 90

MEMORANDUM DECISION & Second Order Directing Service of Process, Answer And/Or Dispositive Motion granting 70 Motion to Seal; granting 86 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend. See order for details. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 7/25/12. (jmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

MEMORANDUM DECISION &
SECOND ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE
OF PROCESS, ANSWER AND/OR
DISPOSITIVE MOTION

BRIAN MAGUIRE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:10-CV-626 CW

DR. RICHARD GARDEN et al.,

District Judge Clark Waddoups

Defendants.

Plaintiff, Brian Maguire, an inmate at Utah State Prison
(USP), filed this pro se civil rights suit.
1983 (2012).

See 42 U.S.C.S. §

Plaintiff was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis.

See 28 id. § 1915.

He now moves to amend his amended complaint

to give specific names to John Doe defendants one, five, and six.
The Court grants his motion and hereby incorporates "Motion for
Leave to File an Amended Complaint," (see Docket Entry # 86),
into the Amended Complaint, (see Docket Entry # 31).
Based on review of the information now incorporated into the
Amended Complaint, the Court concludes that official service of
process is warranted.

The United States Marshals Service is

directed to serve a properly issued summons and a copy of
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and a copy of document number

eighty-six, along with this Order, upon the following
individuals:
Steve Mecham, Nurse
Jerry Miller, Correctional Officer
Dale Whitney, Correctional Officer
Once served, Defendants shall respond to the summons in one
of the following ways:
(A) If Defendants wish to assert the affirmative defense of
Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies in a
grievance process, Defendants must,
(i) file an answer, within twenty days of service;
(ii) within ninety days of filing an answer, prepare
and file a Martinez report limited to the exhaustion
issue1;

1

See Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978) (approving
district court’s practice of ordering prison administration to prepare report
to be included in pleadings in cases when prisoner has filed suit alleging
constitutional violation against institution officials).
In Gee v. Estes, 829 F.2d 1005 (10th Cir. 1987), the Tenth Circuit
explained the nature and function of a Martinez report, saying:
Under the Martinez procedure, the district judge or a
United States magistrate [judge] to whom the matter
has been referred will direct prison officials to
respond in writing to the various allegations,
supporting their response by affidavits and copies of
internal disciplinary rules and reports. The purpose
of the Martinez report is to ascertain whether there
is a factual as well as a legal basis for the
prisoner's claims. This, of course, will allow the
court to dig beneath the conclusional allegations.
These reports have proved useful to determine whether
the case is so devoid of merit as to warrant dismissal
without trial.
Id. at 1007.

2

(iii) within ninety days of filing an answer, file a
separate summary judgment motion, with a supporting
memorandum; and
(iv) within ninety days of filing an answer, submit a
proposed order for dismissing the case based upon
Plaintiff's failure to exhaust, in word processing
format, to:
[e-mail].
(B) If Defendants choose to challenge the bare allegations
of the complaint, Defendants shall, within twenty days of
service,
(i) file an answer; or
(ii) file a motion to dismiss based on Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and submit a proposed order
for dismissing the case, in word processing format, to:
[e-mail].
(C) If Defendants choose not to rely on the defense of
failure to exhaust and wish to pierce the allegations of the
complaint, Defendants must,
(i) file an answer, within twenty days of service;
(ii) within ninety days of filing an answer, prepare
and file a Martinez report addressing the substance of
the complaint;
3

(iii) within ninety days of filing an answer, file a
separate summary judgment motion, with a supporting
memorandum; and
(iv) within ninety days of filing an answer, submit a
proposed order for dismissing the case based upon the
summary judgment motion, in word processing format, to:
[e-mail].
Plaintiff is notified that if Defendants move for summary
judgment Plaintiff cannot rest upon the mere allegations in the
complaint.

Instead, as required by Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 56(e), to survive a motion for summary judgment
Plaintiff must allege specific facts, admissible in evidence,
showing that there is a genuine issue remaining for trial.
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff's motion to amend his amended complaint is
GRANTED.

(See Docket Entry # 86.)

Docket Entry number eight-six

is hereby incorporated into the Amended Complaint.

(See Docket

Entry # 31.)
(2) The United States Marshals Service shall serve a
completed summons, a copy of the Amended Complaint, (Docket Entry
# 31), a copy of docket entry number eighty-six, and a copy of
this Order upon the above-listed defendants.
4

(3) Within twenty days of being served, Defendants must file
an answer or motion to dismiss and proposed order, as outlined
above.
(4) If filing (on exhaustion or any other basis) a Martinez
report with a summary judgment motion and proposed order,
Defendants must do so within ninety days of filing their
answer(s).
(5) If served with a Martinez report and a summary judgment
motion or motion to dismiss, Plaintiff may file a response within
thirty days.
(6) Summary-judgment motion deadline is ninety days from
filing of answer.
(7) Defendants must stay a final Martinez report and
summary-judgment motion, including all defendants--with the newly
specifically named defendants--to meet the scheduling
requirements of this Order.

5

(8) Defendants' motion to seal medical records is GRANTED.
(See Docket Entry # 70.)
DATED this 25th day of July, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

______________________________
JUDGE CLARK WADDOUPS
United States District Court

6