Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Drummond v. Blackwell

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

June 24, 2016

Edward Drummond, Plaintiff,
v.
Sargent Blackwell, kitchen; Major Neal Urch, Director; Asley McCann, Legal; Det. Brock; Det. Reyes; Dr. McDonald, Defendants.

          ORDER

          Kaymani D. West, United States Magistrate Judge.

         This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff’s four pending Motions to Amend his Complaint. ECF Nos. 44, 47, 55, and 60. The court also considers Plaintiff’s Motion for Conspiracy, Special Verdict, and Liability of Multiple Defendants. ECF No. 52.

         ECF No. 44

         On May 9, 2016, prior to the court’s May 12th deadline for amended pleadings, ECF No. 34, Plaintiff filed his second Motion to Amend his Complaint, [1] ECF No. 44. In this new motion, captioned as “Motions to Amend Pleading - § 16-5-10 Conspiracy – 18 U.S.C.A. § 1701 Obstruct or Retard the Mail, ” Plaintiff asserts additional causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), defamation, and invasion of privacy related to strip searches that occurred in the Behavioral Management Unit (“BMU”) of the Spartanburg County Detention Center. Id. at 1. The remaining allegations in the Motion to Amend reiterate previous allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint and Supplemental Pleading attached to the Complaint. See ECF Nos. 1 and 1-5.

         Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court should “freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). The undersigned finds that it is in the interests of justice to allow the amendment of the Complaint to include Plaintiff’s claim for IIED, defamation, and invasion of privacy. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, ECF No. 44, is granted.

         ECF No. 47

         On May 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed another Motion to Amend his Complaint. ECF No. 47. Plaintiff begins his motion by requesting the “Spillman Report” and copies of correspondence from the Spartanburg County Clerk of Court. Plaintiff also moves for “punitive damages due to lies, the banding of all the defendants to violate [him] are motivated by evil intent!” Id. The remaining allegations in the motion are the same issues contained in Plaintiff’s prior Motion to Amend. See ECF No. 44.

         To the extent that Plaintiff requests the court take action concerning his requests for certain information, including but not limited to the court’s interaction with the Spartanburg County Clerk of Court’s Office, these requests are denied. Furthermore, as noted in ECF No. 40, while Plaintiff is allowed to allege certain damages-including punitive damages-the court is making no ruling as to whether punitive damages are appropriate in this matter. As noted above, the remaining allegations have already been included in prior motions-including claims involving Defendant McDonald. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is granted only to the extent that he is allowed to assert a claim for punitive damages.

         ECF No. 55

         On May 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed “Motions to Amend due to extraordinary circumstance.” ECF No. 55. Plaintiff asserts that he is no longer “hindered by the powerful drug (Seroquel)” and now has a “clear brain” so that he can better articulate his claims. Id. Plaintiff’s allegations in this motion concern claims of excessive force and lack of medical attention by Defendants Brock and Reyes. These claims have already been set forth in “Claim 4” of Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF No. 1 at 4. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, ECF No. 55, is denied.

         ECF No. 60

         On May 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed yet another Motion to Amend his Complaint, requesting the he be allowed to amend because his “brain is recovering due to been [sic] off drug.” ECF No. 60. Plaintiff again reiterates claims of deliberate indifference, conditions of confinement, current and future claims for IIED, and claims related to lack of mail service. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges overt acts in furtherance of conspiracy to deny him medical treatment. Id. at 1.

         Because this Motion contains the same allegations as previously raised by Plaintiff and contained in or incorporated into his Complaint by the granting of prior motions, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, ECF No. 60, is denied.

         ECF ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.