United States District Court, D. South Carolina
KAYMANI D. WEST, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court on the
following Motions of Plaintiff: Motion for a $1 Million
Liability Cap, ECF No. 72; Motion for Discovery, ECF No. 78;
Motion to Compel, ECF No. 79; Motion to Amend/Correct
Complaint, ECF No. 83; and Motion for Punitive Damages and
Against a Municipality, ECF No. 86. The undersigned will
address each of Plaintiff’s Motions in turn.
Plaintiff’s Motion for a $1 Million Liability Cap, ECF
Motion, Plaintiff requests that the court add Dr. McDonald as
a Defendant to this action. ECF No. 72 at 1. Additionally,
Plaintiff requests a $1 million liability cap and cites to
certain sections of the South Carolina Code. Id. In
Response, Defendant McDonald represents that he has already
filed an answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint where he
denied all allegations. ECF No. 85. Additionally, Defendant
McDonald objects to Plaintiff’s Motion for a $1 Million
Cap. See id.
portion of Plaintiff’s Motion seeking to add Dr.
McDonald as a Defendant is denied as moot because he is
already a party to this action who has made an appearance. To
the extent Plaintiff is alleging $1 million in
damages, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion. However,
Plaintiff is advised that while he is allowed to allege
certain damages the court is making no ruling at this time on
his request regarding a “$1 million liability
cap.” Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. 72,
is granted in part and denied in part.
Motion for Discovery, ECF No. 78
April 10, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Discovery. ECF
No. 78. Defendants did not file a Response to
Plaintiff’s Motion. In his Motion, Plaintiff requests
“full discovery material and interrogatories. . .
.” Id. The nature of Plaintiff’s request
is unclear. Plaintiff is required to comply with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) pertaining to
discovery. Specifically, Plaintiff is directed to review and
comply with the requirements of Rules 33 and 34 of the FRCP.
Plaintiff is instructed that he should not seek the
court’s involvement in discovery unless and until a
dispute arises between the parties concerning discovery.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. 78, is denied.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 79
April 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to “compel
court to take action for contemp[t] and or perjury on Ashley
McCann due to [an] unethical report.” ECF No. 79.
Defendants, with the exception of Defendant McDonald,
responded and represent that they are “unaware of any
sworn document submitted to the Court from [Defendant McCann]
which would be the basis of Plaintiff’s assertion that
she has lied or perjured herself.” ECF No. 89.
Defendant McDonald also responded to Plaintiff’s Motion
“[o]ut of an abundance of caution” and represents
that he is not “involved in the matters under
consideration.” ECF No. 90.
appears to the court that a factual dispute has arisen
between Plaintiff’s version of events that occurred in
2013 and Defendants’ version of events. Without opining
or ruling on whether this dispute concerns a matter in this
case, the court advises Plaintiff that it is noting his
disagreement concerning the attachment to his Motion.
However, Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. 79, is otherwise
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint, ECF No.
April 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting
additional time, five extra days, to serve the five parties
with a copy of the subpoena. ECF No. 83. Additionally,
Plaintiff moves to amend his Complaint in order to assert new
allegations against Defendants. See Id. Finally,
Plaintiff requests two subpoenas. Id. at 4.
McDonald responded to Plaintiff’s Motion and objects to
the portion of Plaintiff’s Motion where he requests to
amend his Complaint because Defendant McDonald has already
filed an answer and moved for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 99.
Defendant McDonald represents that the portion of
Plaintiff’s Motion directed at the issuance of
subpoenas to Dr. Edmond Higgins and others “is untimely
and will not lead to the discovery of any relevant evidence
related to Dr. McDonald.” Id. at 2.
portion of Plaintiff’s Motion requesting additional
time to serve Defendants copies of subpoenas is granted.
However, the portion of Plaintiff’s Motion requesting
to amend his Complaint is denied. The deadline for filing an
amendment to his Complaint ended on March 23, 2016.
See ECF No. 45. Furthermore, Plaintiff is asserting
allegations against a non-party to this action which appear
to be an entirely separate matter. Moreover, Defendant
McDonald has already filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in
this matter. See ECF No. 68. Consequently, the
portion of Plaintiff’s Motion requesting issuance of
subpoenas is also denied because the information Plaintiff
seeks is irrelevant to the causes of action in his Complaint.
Therefore, Plaintiffs Motion, ECF No. 45, ...