Langley v. Huntington WV Police Dept (HPD) (Arresting Officer) et al

Filing 25

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 23 MOTION to Compel; directing Huntington Police Department to provide Plaintiff with the name of the arresting officer within seven days of the date of this Order and to provide the name and address of the officer to the Clerk of Court for service of process; denying Plaintiff's 24 MOTION to Clarify as premature. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 8/7/2017. (cc: Plaintiff; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (jsa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
JAMES ALBERT LANGLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:17-cv-03520

HUNTINGTON WEST VIRGINIA HPD
(Arresting Officer); WESTERN REGIONAL
JAIL (C. O. Michael York); PRIME CARE
MEDICAL, INC. (Nurse Jolaina);
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.
(Dr. Charles Lye); W. V. DEPT. of
CORRECTIONS (Commissioner Jim
Rubenstein),
Defendants.

ORDER
Pending are Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, (ECF No. 23), and Motion to Clarify,
(ECF No. 24). In the Motion to Compel, Plaintiff explains the difficulty he has
encountered in trying to obtain the name of the officer who arrested Plaintiff on July 11,
2015. Given that Plaintiff has named the unknown officer as a defendant in this case,
Plaintiff is entitled to know the name of the officer. Therefore, the Motion is GRANTED.
The Huntington Police Department is hereby ORDERED to provide Plaintiff with the
name of the arresting officer within seven days of the date of this Order. The Huntington
Police Department is also ORDERED to provide the name and address of the officer to
the Clerk of Court for service of process. The Clerk is instructed to keep the address of the
officer confidential by redacting it on the summons filed in CM/ECF.

In the Motion to Clarify, Plaintiff indicates that he just learned of the West Virginia
statute governing the filing of medical negligence claims, which requires a Notice of Claim
to be served prior to instituting a civil action. Plaintiff asks the Court to not dismiss the
portion of his complaint relating to medical care even though he failed to serve a Notice
of Claim. As no Motion to Dismiss is pending, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to
Clarify as premature.
Plaintiff is advised, however, that a federal lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
which asserts that a prison official was deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s serious
medical need, is a constitutional claim, rather than a medical negligence claim. As
the two types of claims differ, the rules and requirements governing the claims may also
differ. Plaintiff should acquaint himself with any such differences to ensure that he is
pursuing the correct claim in the correct court.
The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel of
record, and any unrepresented party.
ENTERED: August 7, 2017