Mata v. Douglas et al

Filing 53

MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER FOR SERVICE OF AMENDED COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANTS: The USMS shall serve a completed summons, a copy of the Amended Complaint, and a copy of this Order upon the listed defendants. See order for details. Denying 38 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Denying 47 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 05/17/2017. (kpf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
EDGARDO MATA,

v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER
FOR SERVICE OF AMENDED
COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANTS

SCOTT CROWTHER et al.,

Case No. 2:15-CV-575-DN

Plaintiff,

Defendants.

District Judge David Nuffer

Plaintiff/inmate, Edgardo Mata, filed a pro se civil rights case, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983
(2017), proceeding in forma pauperis, see 28 id. 1915. The Court screened his Complaint and
ordered service on Defendants. Defendants answered.
Plaintiff now moves to amend his complaint. Having screened the amended complaint,
see id. §§ 1915-1915A (stating screening standard), the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to amend
and orders service of the amended complaint upon Defendants.
ORDER FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON DEFENDANTS
The United States Marshals Service (USMS) is directed to serve a properly issued
summons and a copy of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, (see Docket Entry # 33), along with this
Order, upon the following Utah Department of Corrections defendants:
SCOTT CROWTHER, WARDEN
ALFRED BIGELOW, FORMER WARDEN
AARON DOUGLAS, R.N.
JOSEPH COOMBS
SIDNEY G. ROBERTS
SIDNEY G. ROBERTS
DANE THURSTON, P.A.
SGT. JASON HUTCHINSON

OFFICER DUSTIN J. NIELSON
INVESTIGATOR PETE WALTERS
FNU RENTMIESTER
FNU HARRIS, GANG SERGEANT
CAPTAIN RONALD WILSON
LT. DALLAS RAY
CAPTAIN JASON NICHOLES
CHRISTOPHER NORTH
SGT. KELLY WORLEY
SGT. CRAIG BUCHANNON
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) within 20 days of service, file an answer;
(ii) within 90 days of filing an answer, prepare and file a Martinez report limited
to the exhaustion issue1; and,
(iii) within 120 days of filing an answer, file a separate summary judgment
motion, with a supporting memorandum.

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

(B) If Defendants choose to challenge the bare allegations of the Complaint, Defendants
shall, within 20 days of service,
(i) file an answer; or
(ii) file a motion to dismiss based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
(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) within 20 days of service, file an answer;
(ii) within 90 days of filing an answer, prepare and file a Martinez report
addressing the substance of the complaint; and,
(iii) within 120 days of filing an answer, file a separate summary judgment
motion, with a supporting memorandum.
(D) If Defendants wish to seek relief otherwise contemplated under the procedural rules
(e.g., requesting an evidentiary hearing), Defendants must file an appropriate motion
within 90 days of filing his answer.
The parties shall take note that local rules governing civil cases are in effect. All
requirements are important but the most significant changes are in motion practice and sealed
filings. This Court will order the parties to refile summary-judgment motions which do not
follow the standards. See D. Utah Civ. R. 5-2 (Filing Cases and Documents under Court Seal);
id. 7-1 (Motions and Memoranda); id. 26-2 (Standard Protective Order and Stays of
Depositions); id. 56-1 (Summary Judgment: Motions and Supporting Memoranda).
Plaintiff is notified that if Defendants move for summary judgment Plaintiff may not rest
upon the mere allegations in the complaint. Instead, as required by Federal Rule of Civil

3

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.
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The Court evaluates Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Having
thoroughly reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, together with all materials on the docket, the Court
denies Plaintiff’s motion. First, Plaintiff appears to be trying to expedite the relief he seeks in his
complaint. This type of injunction is disfavored by the law. See SCFC ILC, Inc. v. Visa USA,
Inc., 936 F.2d 1096, 1098-99 (10th Cir. 1991).
Further, Plaintiff has not specified adequate facts showing each of the four elements
necessary to obtain a preliminary injunctive order:
"(1) a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits; (2)
irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction; (3) proof that the
threatened harm outweighs any damage the injunction may cause
to the party opposing it; and (4) that the injunction, if issued, will
not be adverse to the public interest."
Brown v. Callahan, 979 F. Supp. 1357, 1361 (D. Kan. 1997) (quoting Kan. Health Care Ass'n v.
Kan. Dep't of Soc. and Rehab. Servs., 31 F.3d 1536, 1542 (10th Cir. 1994)).
Preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary and drastic remedy to be granted only
when the right to relief is "clear and unequivocal." SCFC ILC, Inc., 936 F.2d at 1098. The
Court has carefully reviewed all documents in this case addressing the need for injunctive relief
and concludes Plaintiff's claims do not rise to such an elevated level that an emergency
injunction is warranted. In sum, Plaintiff has not met the heightened pleading standard required
in moving for an emergency injunction.

4

ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) The USMS shall serve a completed summons, a copy of the Amended Complaint,
(Docket Entry # 33), and a copy of this Order upon the above-listed defendants.
(2) Within twenty days of service, Defendants must file an answer or motion to dismiss,
as outlined above.
(3) If filing (on exhaustion or any other basis) a Martinez report, Defendants must do so
within 90 days of filing his answer(s). Under this option, Defendants must then file a summaryjudgment motion within 120 days of filing their answer.
(4) If served with a Martinez report, Plaintiff may file a response within 30 days of the
report’s filing date.
(5) If served with a summary-judgment motion or motion to dismiss, Plaintiff must
submit a response within 30 days of the motion’s filing date.
(6) Summary-judgment motion deadline is 120 days from filing of answer.
(7) If requesting relief otherwise contemplated under the procedural rules, Defendants
must do so within 90 days of filing their answer.
(8) Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED. (See Docket Entry # 38.)

5

(9) Plaintiff’s motion for discovery is DENIED as premature and unnecessary. (See
Docket Entry # 47.) After Defendants file a Martinez report and/or dispositive motion, the Court
will determine on its own whether to further discovery is necessary. No further prompting by
Plaintiff is warranted.
DATED this 17th day of May, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

CHIEF JUDGE DAVID NUFFER
United States District Court

6