The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER EUGENE DE ROSSITTE PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 6:17-CV-6043-RTD-BAB
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, INC.
DR. NANETTE VOWELL, and NURSE
MELISSA L. GIFFORD DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Now before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 147) the Order of
United States Magistrate Judge Barry A. Bryant denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification;
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 148) the Magistrate’s Order granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel; and Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 149)
the Magistrate’s Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions. The Court finds the matters ripe
for consideration.
I. BACKGROUND
This case has a very long, detailed, and complex procedural history. Because it is important
to understand what brought us to this juncture, the Court will undertake to summarize case events
from the beginning. Plaintiff, Christopher Eugene De Rossitte, an indigent litigant representing
himself, is presently an inmate of the Special Needs Unit at Ouachita River Correctional Unit, a
prison facility run by the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). Plaintiff filed a 133 (one
hundred, thirty-three) page Complaint setting out in narrative form allegations covering a period
of more than three years against thirteen named Defendants (Compl., ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges
constant, years-long suffering from conditions and ailments that were ignored or ineffectively
treated by prison medical clinic staff despite his tireless and persistent complaints. Plaintiff alleges
retaliatory action has been taken against him for complaining and filing grievances about his
situation; and that persons in power with knowledge of his suffering failed to act. Upon an initial
review of the Complaint,1 Plaintiff was ordered to file an Amended Complaint using the court
approved §1983 complaint form to clearly state “his claims against each Defendant with factual
specificity” and indicate what claim he was making against each defendant. (Order 1, May 5,
2017, ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff was provided a Prisoner Litigation Guide and the court-approved
complaint form.
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a 170-page Amended Complaint (Am. Compl., June 12, 2017,
ECF No. 11) seeking damages for denial of medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; denial of equal access under the Americans with
Disabilities Act; medical malpractice and negligence; and violation of Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act. Because he did not amend his complaint using the “court-approved
complaint form to clearly state how each named Defendant violated his federal constitutional
1 Local Rule 72.1 § VIII.B Reference – Prisoner Petitions
A Magistrate Judge shall have the following responsibilities with regard to prisoner petitions:
1. Review of prisoner correspondence and petitions concerning 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 and
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 matters;
2. Review of prisoner correspondence and petitions concerning conditions of confinement with are submitted
by federal prisoners;
3. Preparation and distribution of forms required by the Rules Governing Sec. 2254 Cases (28 U.S.C. Sec.
2254);
4. Entry of orders authorizing the petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis without the prepayment of costs or
fees;
5. Issuance of all necessary orders to answer or to show cause or any other necessary orders or writs to obtain
a complete record;
6. Taking of depositions, conducting pretrial conferences, and conducting evidentiary hearings or other
necessary proceedings in order to obtain a complete record.
rights,” Plaintiff was directed to file a Second Amended Complaint using the approved form and
limiting the complaint to a total of ten (10) pages. (Order 1, Aug. 21, 2017, ECF No. 13.)
Plaintiff’s 138-page Second Amended Complaint (including 127 pages of attached
grievances), was filed on or about September 5, 2017 alleging four claims for relief against nine
named defendants: denial of medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment; retaliation in
violation of the First Amendment; denial of medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment
and the Americans with Disabilities Act; and medical injury under Arkansas state law. The named
defendants are Correct Care Solutions, Inc. (CCS), Nannette Vowell, Melissa L. Gifford, Andrea
Beasley, Gwendolyn Hart, Richard Morgan, Rory Griffin, Wendy Kelly, and Nichole A.
Robinson. (Second Am. Compl., Sept. 5, 2017, ECF No. 14.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges:
The plaintiff, for over two and half years, has and continues to suffer from a frequently
debilitating and always painful condition (likely a bacterial infection MRSA). Symptoms
include many NEVER addressed by ANY CCS staff person despite dozens and dozens of
sick calls, requests and grievances: constant pain in tissues of face and head; Frequent,
usually daily headaches, mild to severe; excessive thirst; difficulty swallowing; recurrent
boils and bumps on face; recurrent swelling eyelids; earaches; muscle weakness and pain;
shortness of breath, persistent and recurrent rashes; urine irregularities; poor blood work
labs; bouts of nausea. And also includes a few INEFFECTIVELY addressed symptoms:
constant eye pain and irritation; build-up of irritants under eyelids resulting in sleep
deprivation; blurred, cloudy and dimmed vision; constant sinus trouble; recurring cough;
recurring sore throat; edema on arms. Possible long-term health issues and permanent vision
damage may already have resulted.
(Second Am. Compl. 4, 8.) Upon review, the Court entered an order directing service of the
Second Amended Complaint (Order Directing Service, Oct. 5, 2017, ECF No. 16).
Defendant Wendy Kelley is Director of the Arkansas Department of Correction, and
Defendant Rory Griffin is Deputy Director. Defendants Griffin and Kelley (the ADC Defendants)
filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for money damages against
state officials acting in their official capacities is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. In addition,
Defendants asserted Plaintiff did not request “precise” injunctive relief from them in their official
capacities; Defendant Griffin is entitled to qualified immunity as to the individual capacity claims
against him; and Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief under the ADA. (Defs’ Mot. to Dismiss,
Oct. 30, 2017, ECF No. 20.)
On November 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a pleading captioned “Motion for Declaratory
Relief” wherein he made additional allegations against various Defendants and stated “that ONLY
due to the Court imposed restriction of length, and for no other reason, Plaintiff was unable to
include under §VII Relief, of that form, nor in the three supplemental pages, the perspective [sic]
Declaratory Relief the Plaintiff seeks.” By his motion, Plaintiff sought declaratory judgment
requiring the ADC be held accountable for oversight of medical services. Plaintiff also sought
declaratory judgment finding that ADC Defendants Kelley and Griffin acted with deliberate
indifference to the violation of Plaintiff’s 8th Amendment rights; that CCS is contractually
obligated and “not at liberty to disregard, refuse to diagnose or decline to treat” Plaintiff’s
afflictions; that the refusal of Defendant’s Vowell and Gifford to diagnose and treat Plaintiff’s
symptoms over a two year period despite numerous and persistent requests is a continuing
violation of Plaintiff’s 8th Amendment rights; that Defendants Vowell and Gifford violated his 1st
Amendment rights by “their many retaliatory actions and efforts attempting to punish and silence
the Plaintiff for speaking out”; that the actions of Defendants Vowell and Gifford constitute
“medical injury, as malpractice and neglect, under Arkansas state law;” that Plaintiff’s hearing aid
is recognized under the ADA as disability support device necessary for Plaintiff’s daily activities
and is not a luxury or privilege to be arbitrarily withheld; that Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable
access to his medical records including a wheelchair accessible area with an open surface upon
which Plaintiff may work; that Defendant’s documents may not be withheld arbitrarily; and that
Plaintiff shall not face retaliatory action or negative treatment from Defendants as a result of this
legal action. (Pl.’s Mot. Declaratory Relief 2-4, Nov. 13, 2017, ECF No. 26.)
Upon review, the Magistrate determined it was appropriate to refile the Motion for
Declaratory Relief as a Supplement to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. (Pl.’s Suppl. to
Second Am. Compl, Nov. 14, 2017, ECF No. 28.) All named Defendants responded to the
Supplement. (ADC Defs’ Response to Pl.’s Suppl. Second Am. Compl, Nov. 27, 2017, ECF No.
31; Defs’ Answer, Nov. 28, 2017, ECF No. 32.)
Plaintiff thereafter filed a Response to the ADC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Pl.’s
Resp. to Defs’ Mot. to Dismiss, Dec. 7, 2017, ECF No. 36); the ADC Defendants replied (Defs.’
Reply to Resp. to Mot., Dec. 14, 2017, ECF No. 38); and Plaintiff filed a sur-reply (Pl.’s Resp.,
Jan. 23, 2018, ECF No. 44). Upon review by United States District Judge Susan O. Hickey, the
Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s official capacity claims
against the ADC Defendants for denial of medical care and the individual and official capacity
claims against separate Defendant Griffin based on the ADA were dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff’s individual capacity claim against separate Defendant Griffin for denial of medical care
was not dismissed. Lastly, Plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief against the ADC Defendants
was denied on grounds that the requested relief was improper. (Order, April 19, 2018, ECF No.
67.)
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction asking the Court to “immediately
remedy the undue suffering the Plaintiff continues to face in direct violation of the Eighth
Amendment….” (Pl.’s Mot. Prelim. Inj. 1, Dec. 22, 2017, ECF No. 39.) In the Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff requests that he be tested for MRSA and be given an appropriate
course of treatment; that Defendants Vowell and Gifford be prohibited from making any medical
decisions, recommendations or examinations regarding Plaintiff; and that Plaintiff’s medical needs
be addressed by other available day clinic staff (Mot. Prelim. Inj. 7-8, ECF No. 39). Plaintiff also
requests to “arrange to have a correctional officer (preferably one known to the Plaintiff to be of
exceptional trustworthiness and good character . . .) to be present at all times during the collection,
packaging and transfer of samples, maintaining observation of those to be sent to a lab…” (Id. at
10, ECF No. 39). Defendants filed Responses in Opposition to the motion, (ADC Defs.’ Resp.
Opp’n Mot. Prelim. Inj., Jan. 5, 2019, ECF No. 40; Resp. Opp’n Mot. Prelim. Inj., Jan. 5, 2019,
ECF No. 42), and Plaintiff filed a Reply to the Responses (ECF No. 45). On February 9, 2018,
the Court mistakenly ordered the Clerk to re-file the Supplement (ECF No. 28) as a Motion for
Declaratory Relief. It was so filed (ECF No. 48), and Defendants filed Responses in Opposition
(ADC Defs’ Response to Pl.’s Mot. for Declaratory Relief, Feb. 21, 2018, ECF No. 50; Response
to Pl.’s Mot. for Declaratory Relief, Feb. 21, 2018, ECF No. 51). On March 26, 2018, the Motion
for Declaratory Relief (ECF No. 48) was denied as moot and the Order refiling the Supplement as
a Motion for Declaratory Relief was withdrawn. (See Order, March 26, 2018, ECF No. 56.) The
same day, the Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 49) recommending the
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 39) be denied on the grounds that it was unlikely
Plaintiff would be successful on the merits of his claims; that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate
irreparable harm; the balance of equities favored the Defendants; and the issuance of an injunction
would not serve any public interest. (Report, Feb. 9, 2019, ECF No. 49.)
Plaintiff filed timely written objections to the Magistrate’s report and recommendation
denying the preliminary injunction and conceded that, “AS WRITTEN [the] request for a
preliminary injunction should be rejected on the grounds that it is excessively complex, makes
multiple assumptions and would require an unnecessary level of Court intervention.” Plaintiff
then goes on to state his specific objections to the report. First, Plaintiff does not just “disagree”
with how the Defendants are providing care, Plaintiff asserts that a “majority of his symptoms
have never been treated, diagnosed, discussed or in any way addressed by CCS medical staff.”
The few treatments that have been offered were largely ineffective. (Pl.’s Resp. to Report 1, Feb.
23, 2018, ECF No. 52) Second, Plaintiff objects to the finding his “symptoms do not appear to
be the type of serious medical conditions which place him in danger of immediate harm.” Plaintiff
maintains that “further vision loss must be considered a very real possibility.” Plaintiff believes
his symptoms may all be explained by “a bacterial agent such as MRSA” which can be potentially
life threatening. Plaintiff claims the medical staff deliberately ignore his symptoms and
complaints and refuse any diagnostic test to rule out MRSA. Plaintiff also limits the requested
injunctive relief to include ordering medical personnel to diagnose and treat symptoms not
previously addressed; provide effective treatment for his eyes; and that Defendants Vowell and
Gifford be “prohibited, for the duration of this case, from treating the Plaintiff based on prior acts
of retaliation and a clear conflict of interest.” Id. After a de novo review, United States District
Judge Susan O. Hickey, adopted the Report and Recommendation in full, and Plaintiff’s Motion
for Preliminary Injunction was denied. (Order, April 20, 2018, ECF No. 72.) Judge Hickey
advised Plaintiff if he “wishes for the Court to consider more limited injunctive relief he may so
move, but the Court will not evaluate such requests when made in responsive pleadings.” (Id. at
2)
In addition to his requests for declaratory and injunctive relief, Plaintiff also sought court
intervention in discovery issues. Plaintiff filed a Motion Requesting Depositions Upon Written
Questions (March 12, 2018, ECF No. 53) requesting to depose Thomas N. Daniel (CCS Day Clinic
Physician); Defendant Gwendolyn Hart (former CCS Nurse/physician’s assistant); Ms. Cannon
(CCS physician’s assistant); Defendant Nannette Vowell (CCS physician); and Defendant Melissa
Gifford (CCS nurse). Defendants filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion. (Defs’ Resp.
Mot. Requesting Dep., March 26, 2018, Doc. No. 57.) The Motion was denied on grounds that
Plaintiff failed to indicate his willingness or ability to pay the expenses associated with the
requested discovery. (Order, March 27, 2018, ECF No. 58.)
Plaintiff also filed a Motion for an Order to Compel Production of Documents from
Defendant Correct Care Solutions, LLC (Mot. Compel CCS, March 16, 2018, ECF No. 54)
seeking an order demanding production of all documents that had been properly requested and
that Defendant CCS failed to provide. Plaintiff filed an Addendum to the Motion to Compel to
alert the Court to the fact that the Motion may be missing page three, and Plaintiff attached to the
addendum a new page three to fill in the gap. (Pl.’s Addendum to Mot. Compel CCS, March 26,
2018, Doc. No. 55.) Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel CCS (ECF No.
61) asserting that Plaintiff had failed to attempt to confer with Defense Counsel prior to filing the
Motion as required by Local Rule 7.2(g). In addition, Defendants’ attorney advised the Court that
he had written “a letter to the Ouachita River Unit medical staff on March 2, 2018, notifying them
of Plaintiff’s pending litigation and requesting that Plaintiff be able to regularly review his
records” and specifically requesting that Plaintiff be provided access to printed copies of his
electronic medical records. (Defs’ Resp. Mot. Compel CCS 2, ¶ 6, March 30, 2018, ECF No. 61.)
The Magistrate Judge ruled that the Motion to Compel CCS should be denied because Plaintiff
failed to show he made any effort to confer with Defendant before seeking court intervention.
(Text Only Order, April 2, 2018, ECF No. 62.)
On April 10, 2018, eight days after the Order denying the Motion to Compel CCS was
entered, Plaintiff filed a Reply to Defendant’s Response to the Motion alleging that “a printed
copy of his eomis records” had not been added to his medical jacket as mentioned in Defense
Counsel’s letter, and that Defendant’s objections to his discovery requests were unsupported and
“flimsy.” (Pl.’s Reply Mot. Compel CCS 1-2, April 10, 2018, ECF No. 63.) Plaintiff also advised
the Court that on April 3, 2018 he had sent a letter to Defense Counsel attempting to resolve the
discovery dispute. Plaintiff asked the Court to “merely stay a ruling until such time as Defense
Counsel has had sufficient time to respond to the Plaintiff’s letter…as the Plaintiff believes it
highly unlikely the Defense will in any way alter its position or provide suitable justification for
denying discovery.” (Pl.’s Reply 1, ECF No. 63.)
While the Motion to Compel CCS was working its way through the Court, Plaintiff filed a
Motion for an Order to Compel Response to Interrogatories and Production of Documents from
Defendant Nannette Vowell (Mot. Compel Vowell, March 29, 2018, ECF No. 59) and a Motion
for an Order to Compel Response to Interrogatories and Production of Documents from Defendant
Melissa Gifford (Mot. Compel Gifford, March 29, 2018, ECF No. 60). By these motions, Plaintiff
sought responses to the discovery he had served on Defendants Vowell and Gifford on January
30, 2018. Defendants Vowell and Gifford filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel
asserting that the motions were untimely and premature because Plaintiff had not attempted to
confer with Defense Counsel before seeking Court intervention. (Defs’ Resp. Mots. Compel,
April 12, 2018, ECF No. 64.) The motions to compel were both denied on the grounds that
“Plaintiff failed to show he made any effort to confer with Defendant(s) before filing…” (Text
Only Orders, April 20, 2018, ECF Nos. 70, 71).
Not to be deterred, and on or about June 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reassert
Motions to Compel with Additional Argument alleging that the responses he received to the
January 30, 2018 discovery served on Defendants Vowell and Gifford were ”woefully incomplete”
even though Plaintiff had made efforts to confer with Defense Counsel through written
correspondence on April 3, 2018 and again on May 8, 2018. (Pl.’s Mot. Reassert Mots. Compel,
June 5, 2018, ECF No. 74.) Plaintiff contended that “despite dozens of requests and grievances,
the Plaintiff was never provided all those documents he sought to view.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff
complained of the “extreme hindrance” encountered attempting to view the documents that were
produced for his review, including limited viewing time and arbitrary viewing schedules. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff asserted that his discovery requests were not “voluminous, [un]proportional, overly
broad, outweighing utility, seeking attorney work product,” and that Defendants’ objections were
not supported by any facts or explanation and should be overruled. Id. at 4. Finally, Plaintiff
accused Defendants of “duplicity” and using “language intended to obfuscate and avoid.” Id. At
the end of his motion, Plaintiff once more set forth the specific documents and information he
sought produced by Defendants CCS, Vowell and Gifford. Id. at 5-7.
In Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reassert Motions to Compel, Defendants stood by
their objections to Plaintiff’s discovery requests arguing that the responses given were appropriate
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Def.’s Resp. Mot. Compel, June 19, 2018, ECF No.
75.) Defendants also pointed out that ADC policy strictly controls access to an inmate’s Medical
Records, “including when and where the inmate will review the Medical Record and the duration
of the review session.” ADC policy also states that an inmate “will not be provided with a copy
of any part of his or her Medical Record, except for those forms where a copy is designated for
the inmate, such as duty restrictions or diet restrictions.” (Def’s Resp. 2, ¶ 6 (citation omitted)).
Defendants allege Plaintiff has been provided appropriate access to his medical records in
accordance with ADC policy, and “that the electronic medical records have been printed at
Plaintiff’s request and included in his medical jacket for Plaintiff to review.” Id. at ¶ 7. Plaintiff
filed a Reply to Defendants’ Response to his Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 79.) Finding Plaintiff’s
discovery requests were relevant, and that Defendants’ objections were “conclusory and [did] not
make any showing as to why the information requested should not be produced,” the Magistrate
Judge issued an Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Reassert Motions to Compel wherein
Defendants were directed to respond to Plaintiff’s requests as specifically set forth on page five of
the Order. (Order 4-5, July 9, 2018, ECF No. 80.)
While the discovery motions against Defendants CCS, Vowell, and Gifford were pending
and referencing the Court’s previous Order advising that he “could submit for the Court’s
consideration a motion requesting ‘more limited injunctive relief,” Plaintiff filed a second Motion
for Preliminary Injunction. (Pl.’s Mot. Prelim. Inj, 1, July 5, 2018, ECF No. 76.) Plaintiff
describes the requested relief as follows: “The medical Defendant CCS provide diagnosis and
treatment for the persistent pain in the tissues of the Plaintiff’s face and head.” Id. at 4. Defendant
Rory Griffin filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion (Resp. in Opposition, July 19, 2019,
ECF No. 84), as did the Medical Defendants (Resp. in Opposition, July 19, 2019, ECF No. 85).
Plaintiff replied to the Responses. (Pl.’s Reply, August 2, 2018, ECF No. 88.) On August 10,
2018 the Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the preliminary
injunction should be denied. (Report and Recommendation, August 10, 2018, ECF No. 92.)
Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiff had failed to show he suffered from an objectively
serious medical need and did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Id. at 4-6. In
addition, Plaintiff failed to show that his alleged symptoms were the type of serious medical
condition that placed him in danger of immediate harm. Id. at 6-7. Finally, the Court found that
the balance of harm if the injunction is granted favored the Defendants and that an injunction
would not serve the public interest. Id at 7. Plaintiff timely filed written objections. (Pl.’s Obj.
to Report and Recommendation, Aug. 27, 2018, ECF No. 103.)
While Plaintiff’s discovery motions and the second motion for preliminary injunction were
pending, Plaintiff filed three Motions for Subpoenas (ECF Nos. 77, 78, 82) seeking testimony of
witnesses. The Court denied these motions as premature since discovery was ongoing. Plaintiff
was advised that he could re-submit his motions to subpoena witnesses for trial if the case survived
summary judgment. (Order, July 9, 2018, ECF No. 81; Order, July 12, 2018, ECF No. 83.)
On July 23, 2018, in response to the Order (ECF No. 80) compelling production,
Defendants filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Court’s Order Granting
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and for Extension of Time Within to Appeal to the District Court
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 72. (ECF No. 86.) This motion was granted,
and Defendants were given until August 6, 2018 to file objections to the Order granting Plaintiff’s
Motion to Reassert Motions to Compel. (Order, July 24, 2018, ECF No. 87.)
The Medical Defendants filed an appeal to the District Court of the Order Granting
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reassert Motions to Compel. (Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision, August
6, 2018, ECF No. 90.) Claiming he did not receive a certified copy of the Appeal allegedly mailed
to him by Defense Counsel, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay Ruling on Defendants’ Appeal, asking
for an additional 14 days to file a response. (Pl.s’ Mot. to Stay Ruling of Defs’ Appeal, Aug. 21,
2018, ECF No. 101.) Believing that Plaintiff was seeking an extension of time to respond the
Appeal, the Magistrate denied the motion for stay, and Plaintiff was given until September 5, 2018
to file a response. (Order, Aug. 22, 2018, ECF No. 102.) Plaintiff made a second request for
additional time to respond to the appeal (Pl.’s Mot. Extend Time, August 29, 2018, ECF No. 104),
and the motion was granted by order entered August 30, 2018 (ECF No. 105). Plaintiff was given
until September 10, 2018 to file his response, and he met this deadline. (Pl.’s Obj. Defs’ Appeal,
Sept. 7, 2018, ECF No. 108.) On November 9, 2018, United States District Judge Susan O.
Hickey, affirmed the Magistrate’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, and the appeal
was dismissed. (Order, Nov. 9, 2018, ECF No. 122.)
On August 6, 2018, the ADC and Medical Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Extend the
discovery deadline to 60 days after the Court issued a ruling on motions for summary judgment
for want of administrative exhaustion that the Medical and ADC Defendants each planned to file
before the end of the month. (Defs.’ Joint Mot. Extension Time, August 6, 2018, ECF No. 89.)
Defendants also requested that Court extend the substantive dispositive motions deadline for
ninety (90) days after the Court ruled on the as-yet-unfiled motions for summary judgment
regarding exhaustion. The motion was granted and both deadlines were extended as requested.
(Order, Aug. 7, 2018, ECF No. 91.)
Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Defendants’ Joint Motion to Extend was not received until
after the Order granting the motion had already been entered. In his opposition, Plaintiff
“vehemently” objected to the extension on the grounds that there was no good cause for the
Defendants’ delay in filing dispositive motions, and the delay would unduly prolong his suffering
and allow for and encourage further retaliatory action. Plaintiff also sought 21 days to amend his
complaint to add or join additional parties and request appointment of counsel. (Pl.’s Obj. to Mot.
to Extend and Counter-Motion, August 17, 2018, ECF No. 93). By order entered September 4,
2018, the Court ruled the Plaintiff’s objection was moot and the motion to amend to add or join
additional parties was denied as untimely as the deadline to do so had passed before Plaintiff’s
motion was filed. (Order, Sept. 4, 2018, ECF No. 106.)
Separate ADC Defendant Rory Griffin filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting
that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Griffin Mot. Summ. J., Aug. 20, 2018,
ECF No. 94). The Medical Defendants filed their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment the same
day, also alleging that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as to many
of his claims against the Medical Defendants. (Med. Defs.’ Mot. Partial Summ. J., Aug. 20, 2018,
ECF No. 97.) The Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a Response to each Motion for
Summary Judgment within 21 days. (Order, Aug. 21, 2018, ECF No. 100.) Plaintiff sought an
extension of time to respond to the motions (Mot. to Extend, Sept. 7, 2018, ECF No. 107).
Plaintiff’s motion was granted, and he was given until October 2, 2018 to file responses to the
Motions for Summary Judgment. (Text-Only Order, Sept. 10, 2019, ECF No. 109.)
Believing it would be prudent to conserve his resources and limit the proceedings to those
he felt most culpable, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss separate Defendant Rory Griffin (Pl.’s
Mot. Dism. Griffin, Oct. 2, 2018, ECF No. 110) and a motion to dismiss separate Defendants
Andrea Beasley, Gwendolyn Hart, Richard Morgan, and Nichole Robinson (Pl.’s Mot. Dism. Med.
Defs., Oct. 2, 2018, ECF No. 111). Plaintiff then filed a Response to the Medical Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 112).
Defendant Griffin filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss asking the court to grant
the motion for summary judgment or in the alternative that the motion to dismiss be granted.
(Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. to Dism. Griffin, Oct. 16, 2018, ECF No. 117.) By order entered October 25,
2018, the motion to dismiss Griffin was granted and Griffin’s motion for summary judgment was
denied as moot. (Order, Oct. 25, 2018, ECF No. 120.)
On October 9, 2018, the Medical Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Dismiss Medical Defendants and Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Medical Defendants’ Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 116). Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extended Time to
Respond to the Medical Defendants’ Reply to the Plaintiff’s Response to the Medical Defendants’
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 118.) Plaintiff’s request for an extension of
time was granted, and Plaintiff was given until November 9, 2018 to file a response. (Text-only
Order, Oct. 23, 2018, ECF No. 119.) The Court also granted Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss separate
Medical Defendants Beasely, Hart, Morgan and Robinson. (Order, Oct. 25, 2018, ECF No. 121.)
Plaintiff’s [Sur-]Reply to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Response to Medical Defendants’
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was filed on November 13, 2018. (ECF No. 123.)
Ruling on the motion, United States District Judge Susan O. Hickey found that between
March 1, 2015 and April 22, 2017, Plaintiff submitted seventy-four formal medical grievances
encompassing two-hundred-and-forty-nine-pages. Defendants conceded Plaintiff completed the
grievance process on twenty-six of the grievances, but Defendants failed to identify with
specificity which of Plaintiff’s claims had not been exhausted. (Mem. Op. 3, December 20, 2018,
ECF No. 126.) As it was Defendants’ burden to identify the claims on which they sought summary
judgment, and Defendants failed to carry their burden, the Motion for Summary Judgment was
denied. (Id. at 6.)
On or about January 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed four additional motions: (1) Motion for
Sanctions against Defendants alleging that they had failed to comply with the court’s order
compelling production of electronic communications concerning Plaintiff’s medical care (Pl.’s
Mot. for Sanctions, January 17, 2019, ECF No. 127.); (2) Motion to Stay Ruling on Claim #4 Until
Constitutionality is Considered (ECF No. 128); (3) Motion to Compel Retention of Documents
(ECF No. 129); and (4) Motion to Compel (ECF No. 130).
On January 18, 2019, Plaintiff’s case was reassigned to this Court pursuant to
administrative order. (Text Only Memo of Reassignment, Jan. 18, 2019, ECF No. 131.)
Plaintiff filed two more motions on January 31, 2019: (1) Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF
No. 132); and (2) Motion for Ruling on the Constitutionality of Arkansas Code 16-114-206 as
Applied Hereinto and Relief Therefrom (ECF No. 133). On that same date, Defendants filed a
Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 134), and the Court issued
an order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Text-Only Order, Jan. 31, 2019, ECF No.
135). Defendants also filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Responses to Plaintiff’s
Motions to Compel (Defs.’ Mot. Ext. Time, Jan. 31, 2019, ECF No. 136).
The next day, on February 1, 2019, Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time was granted,
and Defendants were given until February 7, 2019 to file Response(s) to Plaintiff’s Motions to
Compel. (Text Only Order, Feb. 1, 2019, ECF No. 137.) Defendants timely filed their Response
in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel on February 7, 2019 (ECF No. 140). And on
February 12, 2019, Defendants filed their Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Ruling
on Constitutionality of Arkansas Code (ECF No. 141).
On February 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed two more motions with the Court: (1) Motion for
Extended Discovery (ECF No. 138); and (2) Motion Seeking Clarification as to why the case was
reassigned (ECF No. 139). The Motion for Extended Discovery (ECF No. 138) was granted.
(Order, Feb. 28, 2019, ECF No. 145.)
Finding that Plaintiff had failed to notify the Arkansas Attorney General of a constitutional
challenge and because the case was still in the discovery phase, the Court ruled that it would be
improper to address the constitutionality of portions of the Arkansas Medical Malpractice Act.
Accordingly, both Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 128) to Stay Ruling and Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF
No. 133) for Ruling on the constitutionality of the Arkansas Code section 16-114-206 were denied.
(Order, Feb. 13, 2019, ECF No. 143.)
On February 13, 2019, the Court issued an Order Denying Motion for Clarification stating
that the “Court is not required to explain to any litigant why a case is transferred from one judge
to another. However, the transfer of this case had nothing to do with Plaintiff’s deposition, but
rather occurred with a reassignment of cases within the Hot Springs Division of this Court.”
(Order, Feb. 13, 2019, ECF No. 142.) Noting that Plaintiff had filed seven motions since the
middle of January, and finding that the “continuous filing of motions, some of which are frivolous
or duplicitous, is a waste of the Court’s time and resources, prejudicial to Defendants, and impedes
the resolution of this matter,” the Court directed the Clerk of Court to “accept no further pleadings
or motion from Plaintiff without prior approval or pursuant to Court Order.” Id. Plaintiff was
admonished that “further attempts to file duplicitous or frivolous pleadings could result in
sanctions being imposed against him including dismissal of his claim.” Id. Plaintiff filed an appeal
of the Order Denying Motion for Clarification. (Pl.’s Mot. Recons., March 11, 2019, ECF No
147.)
The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 127) and Motion
to Compel Retention of Documents (ECF No. 129), finding Plaintiff had provided no evidence
supporting his assertions that Defendants had withheld production of existing emails or that the
documents produced by Defendants were incomplete or had been altered. (Order, Feb. 26, 2019,
ECF No. 144.) Plaintiff filed an appeal of this order on March 13, 2019 (ECF No. 149).
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 130) was denied in part with regard to several
discovery requests because Plaintiff failed to meet his burden to demonstrate the relevance of the
requested information or because the request was duplicative and repetitive and involved
information and documents already provided. Two of Plaintiff’s requests for information related
to medical issues not part of his complaint and were denied on grounds of relevance. (Order 5-6,
March 4, 2019, ECF No. 146.) Three interrogatories requesting information about Defendant
Gifford’s separation of employment with CCS were found to be not relevant and denied. (Id. at
7-8.) The Court found that one request for information was duplicative and repetitive and involved
documents not in possession of the Defendant. (Id. at 8.) Two requests for additional electronic
documents were denied as cumulative and duplicative based on Defendants’ representation that
the requested documents had already been provided to Plaintiff. (Id. at 8-9.)
Plaintiff’s Motion was granted in part regarding a few of the interrogatories. With regard
to Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 3 submitted July 7, 2018, Defendants were ordered to produce “a list
of 1983 lawsuits (including the disposition of each lawsuit) over the last 3 years which have
proceeded to trial, or been settled prior to trial, against CCS in connection with the services they
provide to the Arkansas Department of Correction involving allegations of denial of medical care
in the prison setting with thirty (30) days…” (Order 10, March 4, 2019, ECF No. 146.) Request
No. 3 submitted on July 7, 2018 was granted in part and Defendants were ordered to provide
Plaintiff with the requested documents or identify the documents produced that are responsive to
Request No. 3. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff’s Request No. 1 submitted to CCS on July 15, 2018 was
granted in part and Defendants were ordered to produce “any policies or practices of CCS in place
from November 1, 2013 to the present at the ORCU-SNU which seek to reduce the costs of
providing medical care to inmates such as: reducing the number of prescriptions for medications,
reducing the number of conditions considered ‘chronic care,’ reducing the number of blood labs,
reducing the catalogue of approved medications and requiring sick calls to renew long-term
prescribed medications.” (Id. at 13.) Plaintiff filed an appeal of this ruling on March 13, 2019
(ECF No. 148).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has requested relief from three separate orders of the Magistrate Judge: the
February 13, 2019 Order Denying Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 142); the February 13, 2019
Order Denying Motion to Stay and Further Denying Motion for Ruling (ECF No. 143); and the
February 26, 2019 Order Denying Motion for Sanctions and Denying Motion to Compel Retention
of Document (ECF No. 144). Plaintiff captions each pleading as an appeal (ECF Nos. 147, 148,
149). The motions were docketed as Motions to Reconsider.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 72 provides: “When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a
party’s claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge
must…issue a written order stating the decision. A party may serve and file objections to the order
within 14 days after being served. This district judge in the case must consider timely objections
and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).
Local Rule 72.1 is also instructive, providing in pertinent part:
In all matters delegated under authority of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A), a Magistrate Judge’s
decision is final and binding and is subject only to a right of appeal to the District Judge
to whom a case has been assigned. A party may appeal the Magistrate Judge’s ruling by
filing a motion within fourteen (14) days of the Magistrate Judge’s decision…The motion
shall specifically state the ruling excepted to and the basis for the exceptions. The District
Judge shall affirm the Magistrate Judge’s findings unless he finds them to be clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.
Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas,
Rule 72.1 United States Magistrate Judges (Sept. 27, 2017).
A. Motion to Reconsider Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification (ECF
No. 147)
Plaintiff appeals the Magistrate’s Order Denying Clarification (Feb. 13, 2019, ECF No.
142) that directed the Clerk of Court to “accept no further pleadings or motions from Plaintiff
without prior approval from the Court or pursuant to Court Order. Any motion or pleading filed
by the Plaintiff without Court approval or Order shall be returned to him by the Clerk without
filing.” Id. The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s “continuous filing of motions, some of
which are frivolous or duplicitous, is a waste of the Court’s time and resources, prejudicial to
Defendants, and impedes the resolution of this matter.” Id. Plaintiff was also warned “that further
attempts to file duplicitous or frivolous pleadings could result in sanctions being imposed against
him including dismissal of his claim.” Id.
Upon receipt of this order, Plaintiff prepared and attempted to file a Request for Hearing
dated February 21, 2019. It is unclear from the record when the Request for Hearing pleading was
received for filing, but the Clerk of Court returned it to Plaintiff unfiled along with a cover letter
explaining, “At the direction of Chambers I am returning your document unfiled. Please refer to
the attached Order [142] sent 2/13/19 regarding future filings. Further, the Court is not eliminating
you access to the Courts but rather is exercising its discretion to control its docket. Your case will
proceed.” (Pl.’s Mot. Recons. Ex. 2, March 11, 2019, ECF 147-2.)
Plaintiff prepared an Appeal of Ruling pleading dated March 5, 2019 and mailed March 8,
2019. This pleading was docketed as Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Pl.’s Mot. Recons., March
11, 2019, ECF No. 147.) Specifically, Plaintiff objects to the order restricting his ability to file
pleadings on the grounds that he is acting in good faith trying to represent himself and that he is
not familiar with “unwritten customs and policies” of the Court. Plaintiff apologizes “for
offending the Court’s sensibilities.” (Pl.’s Mot. Recons. Ex. 1, ECF 147-1 at 1.) Plaintiff denies
that his filings are duplicative and frivolous and maintains that all pleadings he has filed are
“relevant and crucial” to his case. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff implores the Court to accept that he “is
only doing his level best to remedy his constant and ongoing suffering.” (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff’s motion was accepted for filing and docketed on March 11, 2019 or twenty-six
days after the Magistrate’s decision of February 13, 2019. This means Plaintiff’s appeal was not
timely filed. However, Plaintiff’s original pleading objecting to the Magistrate’s decision was
prepared on February 21, 2019, well within the fourteen-day time period for filing, and the
pleading was rejected by the Clerk’s office without noting the date of receipt. Due to the
confusion, the Court will accept the original Request for Hearing pleading as timely filed on
February 21, 2019 and the Appeal of Ruling pleading will relate back.
Moving on to the merits of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff offers neither
law nor fact which would cause the Court to deviate from Order of the Magistrate Judge. The
order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. It has long been held that “a district court
possesses inherent powers that are ‘governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily
vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition
of cases.’” Dietz v. Bouldin, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 136 S.Ct. 1885, 1891, 195 L.Ed.2d 161 (2016)
(citing Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-631, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). A
district court’s inherent powers are subject to certain recognized limits. First, the exercise must be
a “reasonable response to the problems and needs” confronting the court’s fair administration of
justice; and “second, the exercise of an inherent power cannot be contrary to any express grant of
or limitation on the district court’s power contained in a rule or statute.” Degen v. United States,
517 U.S. 820, 823-824, 116 S.Ct. 1777, 135 L.Ed.2d 102 (1996). These two principles support
the conclusion that the Magistrate Judge acted well within his power when he issued the order
restricting Plaintiff’s ability to file pleadings in this case.
In the span of 21 days between January 17, 2019 and February 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed eight
pleadings: Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 127); Motion to Stay Ruling on Claim 4 Until
Constitutionality is Considered (ECF No. 128); Motion to Compel Retention of Documents (ECF
No. 129); Motion to Compel (ECF No. 130); Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 132); Motion
for Ruling on Constitutionality of Arkansas Code 16-114-206 as Applied Hereinto and Relief
Therefrom (ECF No. 133); Motion for Extended Discovery (ECF No. 138); Motion Seeking
Clarification (ECF No. 139). Five of the motions were denied outright because the motions were
unsupported by evidence or because Plaintiff failed to comply with statutory requirements in filing
the motions or because the motions were improper. Two of the discovery motions were denied in
part because Plaintiff’s requests were not relevant or cumulative and duplicative. This is not to
say that the Court doubts the sincerity of Plaintiff in filing the pleadings, rather the problem
presented by the continuous filing of inadequately supported or improper pleadings is one of
diminished judicial efficiency. In striving to be heard in this manner, Plaintiff has accomplished
comparatively little to further a decision of the merits of his claims. In fact, the continuous filings
have impeded and delayed the administration of justice in this case.
The Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 127) was denied with the Magistrate finding that
“Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any evidence…to support his assertions that emails exist
which have not been produced by Defendants.” (Order 4, Feb. 26, 2019, ECF No. 144.) In
addition, the Magistrate found “no evidence to suggest the documents produced by
Defendants…are incomplete or have been altered.” (Order 6, ECF No. 144.)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Ruling on Claim #4 Until Constitutionality is Considered (ECF
No. 128) was denied because Plaintiff failed to certify he provided appropriate notice to the
Arkansas Attorney General of his intent to challenge the constitutionality of the statute in
compliance with Arkansas code Annotated §16-111-111 (2017) requiring such notice. In addition,
the motion was denied because the case was still in the discovery phase, and the “attempt to address
the constitutionality of portions of the Arkansas Medical Malpractice Act at this point in this
lawsuit is improper.” (Order 2, ECF No. 143.)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Retention of Documents (ECF No. 129) was denied after the
Court found no evidence to suggest the documents produced by Defendants were incomplete or
had been altered. (Order 6, ECF No. 144)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 130) was granted in part and denied in part. The
Defendants opposed Plaintiff’s motion in part on the grounds that the summary of discovery
requests set forth in the motion did not accurately reflect the discovery requests Plaintiff made of
Defendants. The Court agreed and limited its review to the discovery requests actually made by
Plaintiff. In the end, eight of eleven requests were denied on various grounds, including Plaintiff
failed to establish relevance of the requested information; the request was not proportional to the
needs of the case because Plaintiff sought information relating to medical issues that were not part
of his Complaint; the request was duplicative and repetitive and involved documents and
information previously provided by Defendants; the request was cumulative and duplicative and
the information had already been provided; and the information had already been provided. Three
requests were granted in part, and Defendants were ordered to provide the requested documents or
identify which documents, previously produced, were responsive within thirty (30) days. (Order,
March 4, 2019, ECF No. 146.)
The Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 132) was denied after finding Plaintiff’s claims
did not appear legally or factually complex, and Plaintiff was adequately prosecuting the case and
capable of prosecuting his claims without counsel. (Text-Only Order, Feb. 1, 2019, ECF No. 137.)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Ruling on Constitutionality of Arkansas Code § 116-114-206 (ECF
No. 133) was denied for the same reasons as the Motion to Stay Ruling Until Constitutionality is
Considered (ECF No. 128). Namely, Plaintiff failed to give notice to the Arkansas Attorney
General, and it was improper to address constitutionality while the case was still in the discovery
phase. (Order, Feb. 13, 2019, ECF No. 143.)
The Motion for Extended Discovery (ECF No. 138) was granted and Plaintiff was given
an additional period of time to request medical records relating to an examination of his cornea
performed on January 25, 2019, and “any medical records or related documentation not previously
produced by Defendants relating to Plaintiff’s cornea from November 1, 2013 to present.” (Order,
Feb. 28, 2019, ECF No. 145.)
The Motion Seeking Clarification (ECF No. 139) as to why this case was transferred to a
different district judge was denied after the Court ruled that “it is not required to explain to any
litigant why a case is transferred from one judge to another.” The Order denying the Motion
Seeking Clarification imposed the filing restriction from which Plaintiff takes this appeal. (Order,
Feb. 13, 2019, ECF No. 142.)
Based on the foregoing, this Court cannot find the Order restricting Plaintiff’s ability to
file pleadings in this case is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The majority of pleadings filed
by Plaintiff providing the basis for the Magistrate’s ruling were found to be unsupported by
evidence, improper, cumulative or duplicative. The filing of these pleadings made it necessary for
Defense Counsel to spend resources preparing responses in opposition and used up considerable
court time and resources reviewing the pleadings and preparing written orders. The wasteful use
of resources has impeded the administration of justice in this case. Accordingly, the Order (ECF
No. 142) of the Magistrate Judge is affirmed, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Order Denying
Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 147) is denied.
B. Motion to Reconsider Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 148)
Plaintiff appeals the Order of the Magistrate Judge granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Order, March 4, 2019, ECF No. 146). Plaintiff filed his first Motion
to Compel on June 5, 2018 (ECF No. 74), and the motion was granted by the court (Order, July 9,
2018, ECF No. 80.) The Order was appealed by the Defendants (ECF No. 90) and, ultimately, the
decision granting the motion to compel was affirmed by United States District Judge Susan O.
Hickey. (Order, Nov. 9, 2018, ECF No. 122). The Defendants were ordered to produce a specific
list of 17 items of information. (Id. at 2-3.)
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel, his second, on January 17, 2019 (ECF No.
130) asking the Court to compel production of information requested in discovery requests made
on June 12, July 7, and July 15, 2018. Defendants filed a response in opposition (ECF No. 134.)
The second Motion to Compel was granted in part and denied in part. (Order, March 4, 2019, ECF
No. 146.) Plaintiff’s motion was denied on grounds of relevance or because the requests were
duplicative, repetitive, cumulative, overly broad and confusing, or involved documents and
information previously provided to Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff’s appeal followed (Pl.’s Appeal, March
13, 2019, ECF No. 148.) Upon review of the record, this Court finds that Plaintiff has offered
neither law nor fact that would cause the Court to find the Order is clearly erroneous or contrary
to law. Accordingly, the Order (ECF No. 146) of the Magistrate Judge is affirmed, and Plaintiff’s
Motion to Reconsider Order Ruling on the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 148) is denied.
C. Motion to Reconsider Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No.
149)
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions (Mot. for Sanctions, Jan. 17, 2019, ECF No. 127)
alleging Defendants failed to comply with the Court’s orders concerning production of certain
discovery materials and information by failing to produce emails and all medical records requested
and by producing records that appeared to have been altered. Defendants filed a response in
opposition (ECF No. 134). The Motion for Sanctions was denied after the Court found no evidence
to support the assertions that Defendants withheld production of all relevant emails. (Order, Feb.
26, 2019, ECF No. 144.) With regard to the medical records, the Court found no evidence to
suggest the documents produced were incomplete or had been altered. Id. Plaintiff appealed
(Pl.’s Motion to Recons. Order on Mot. for Sanctions, March 13, 2019, ECF No. 149). Upon
review of the record, this Court finds Plaintiff has presented neither law nor fact that would cause
the Court to find the Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the Order (ECF
No. 144) of the Magistrate Judge is affirmed, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Order Ruling
on the Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 149) is denied.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (ECF No.
147) the Magistrates Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification; Plaintiff’s Motion to
Reconsider (ECF No. 148) the Magistrate’s Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel; and Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 149) the Magistrate’s Order
denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions should be and hereby are DENIED.
Further, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows:
1. The Order (ECF No. 142) of the Magistrate Judge denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
Clarification should be and hereby is AFFIRMED in its entirety. Unless otherwise
ordered, Plaintiff shall submit all proposed pleadings or motions to the Magistrate
Judge for review and approval prior to filing, and the Court shall note the date of
receipt. If a proposed pleading or motion is not approved and accepted for filing, it
shall be returned unfiled to the Plaintiff along with a short and concise statement
explaining the deficiency or problem. Plaintiff is warned that further attempts to
file duplicitous or frivolous pleadings could result in sanctions being imposed
against him including dismissal of his claim.
2. The Order (ECF No. 146) of the Magistrate Judge granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel should be and hereby is AFFIRMED;
3. The Order (ECF No. 144) of the Magistrate Judge denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
Sanctions should be and hereby is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of May 2019.
ROBERT T. DAWSON
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
28