United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
E. Rogers, III United States Magistrate Judge
who is proceeding pro se, brings this action,
alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also alleges state law claims.
Presently before the court are Plaintiff's Motions to
Amend (Documents # 18, 30, 39), Motion to Compel (Document #
46), and Motions to Appoint Counsel (Documents # 57, 66). All
pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the
undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), DSC.
MOTIONS TO AMEND COMPLAINT
seeks to add new Defendants, although it is not clear exactly
who Plaintiff seeks to add. He first states he would like to
add “Doctor” and “Head Nurse, ” who
were under the employment of Defendant Southern Health Care
Partners, Inc. He later asks the court to add “the
Doctor of Indian Decent” [sic], the nurse referred to
as “Head Nurse, ” “Nurse Jessica, ”
“Nurse Nece” and all other individuals who were
responsible for his health and safety during his pretrial
detention at issue in this case.
seeks to amend his complaint to add that Defendants are being
sued in their official and individual capacities. He also
asks to amend his request for relief for “negligent
indifference in the amount of two million dollars, gross
negligent indifference, compensatory damages, declaratory
judgment, punitive damages. Also pay court fees and lawyer
fees.” Finally, Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint
to add “Mrs. Melissa Van Duser” as a Defendant.
However, Plaintiff has already named this Defendant, although
he apparently misspelled her name as “Mellisa Van
Dusor.” Melissa Van Duser has filed an answer in this
has submitted a proposed amended complaint. However, it
includes only “Melissa Van Duser” as a Defendant
in her official and individual capacities and the amendment
to his request for relief. It does not include any of the of
the requested additional Defendants, any of the originally
named Defendants, or any of the original allegations.
Plaintiff has also submitted new service documents, but only
for Melissa Van Duser, who has already filed an answer in
15(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., provides that leave to amend a
pleading should be given freely when justice so requires.
Therefore, Plaintiff's motions are granted. However,
Plaintiff must file one, complete amended complaint in
accordance with his motions as well as the requisite service
documents within ten days of the date of this order. If
Plaintiff fails to do so, the original complaint will remain
MOTION TO COMPEL
also moves for an order compelling Defendants to provide full
and complete responses to his requests for production of
documents. Defendants Southern Health Partners and Melissa
Van Duser (the Medical Defendants) responded to
Plaintiff's discovery requests, but Plaintiff complains
that their responses were not adequate because (1) he
requested “taped” progress and non-progress notes
and (2) certain records were redacted because they were
outside the time period requested.
Plaintiff requested “a copy of all progress and non
progress reports that was [sic] taped during August 19, 2013,
thru December 25, 2013.” See Plaintiff's
First Request for Production of Documents (Ex. to Pl. Motion
(Document # 46-1)). In their response to the motion to
compel, counsel for the Medical Defendants stated that he
read “taped” as a typo for “typed”
and responded accordingly. The Medical Defendants
supplemented their response to the discovery request to
provide that no “tapes” exist. See
Supplemental Discovery Responses (Ex. B to Def. Resp.
(Document # 49-2)). The Medical Defendants note that the
medical records, which have already been produced, are kept
electronically, and no audio tapes are used. See
Records Custodian Affidavit of Janet Stevens (Ex. C to Def.
Resp. (Document # 49-3)).
also requested “[a] copy of all medical records, report
of Plaintiff by medical Dept. of J. Reuben Long from August
19, 2013, through December 25, 2013.” See
Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents
(Ex. to Pl. Motion (Document # 46-1)). Plaintiff complains
that some of the records produced by the Medical Defendants
are redacted. The Medical Defendants note that they limited
the production of Plaintiff's medical records to the time
frame requested by Plaintiff. Therefore, even though
Plaintiff had been detained at the J. Reuben Long Detention
Center for brief periods of time in April 2013 and May 2015,
because Plaintiff did not request documents for these dates,
they either did not produce documents with medical records
for those dates or redacted those portions if otherwise
responsive information was included on the same page. The
Medical Defendants also supplemented their responses with
“screen shots of the electronic entries for
[Plaintiff], in an effort to demonstrate that he received the
corresponding records for August to December 2013, and only
did not receive records for April 2013 and May 2015.”
See Supplemental Discovery Responses (Ex. B to Def.
Resp. (Document # 49-2)).
because the Medical Defendants have provided Plaintiff with
the documents requested or provided by way of affidavit that
no such materials (such as “tapes”) exist,
Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied.
MOTIONS FOR ...