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.

Young v. Beard

June 19, 2007

RICHARD YOUNG, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JEFFREY BEARD, SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS; JOHN S. SHAFFER, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY SECRETARY; WILLIAM STICKMAN, DEPUTY SECRETARY; RAYMOND SOBINA, SUPERVISORY SUPERINTENDENT/WESTERN REGION; ALAN B. FOGEL, BUREAU OF HAY HEALTH CARE & FOOD SERVICES DIRECTOR; HARRY WILSON, SUPERINTENDENT AT S.C.I. FAYETTE; ROBERT TRETINIK, CORRECTIONS HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATOR AT S.C.I. FAYETTE; MICHAEL SCRIBNER, FOOD SERVICES MANAGER II AT S.C.I. FAYETTE; TOM MORAN, FOOD SERVICES SUPERVISOR AT S.C.I. FAYETTE; DAVIS SWEITZER, FOOD SERVICES SUPERVISOR AT S.C.I. FAYETTE; MICHAEL HERBIK, D.O. AT S.C.I. FAYETTE; ADAM EBELMAN, STATE MEDICAL DIRECTOR FOR S.C.I. FAYETTE; AND PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INC., FOR S.C.I. FAYETTE, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Magistrate Judge Amy Reynolds

Judge Joy Flowers Conti

Re: Dkt. [39]

MEMORANDUM ORDER

On May 29, 2007, Richard Young, ("Plaintiff") filed a motion to add two additional medical defendants. Dkt. [39]. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.

Plaintiff sent to the court a pro se prisoner civil rights complaint on February 7, 2006, unaccompanied by a filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The complaint was not filed until June 5, 2006. In that complaint he alleged that the defendants were denying him a diabetic/cardiac diet in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Since then, some of the defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, Dkt. [23] which was granted in part and denied in part. Dkts. [35] & [36].

On May 29, 2007, Plaintiff filed the present motion wherein he seeks to add two defendants to the lawsuit. He alleges that in July 2006, he received his annual physical by Dr. Jin, one of the individuals Plaintiff wishes to add as a defendant. Plaintiff complains that

Doctor Jin performed this yearly physical on this Plaintiff, and Doctor (Jin) advised this Plaintiff that his blood sugar was high, his blood pressure was high and my triglycerides were also high, and this Plaintiff ask[ed] Doctor Jin to put his Plaintiff back on his cholesterol medicine, Doctor Jin's reply, you must lose weight, and stop eating so much bread and eat more vegetables and fruit, because these meals here at S.C.I. Fayette are very good for you, and therefore you do not need any cholesterol medicine to get your high cholesterol down, just lose weight, Doctor Jin just said that I should start exercising, and my cholesterol, high blood pressure, and high blood sugar count will all come down to normal ranges.

Dkt. [39] at ¶ 4 (case of letters changed from all upper case to appropriate case).*fn1

Plaintiff also seeks to add Physician Assistant Chris Meyer as a defendant based upon the following allegations:

Physician Assistant/Chris Meyer has also refused to put me back on my cholesterol medicine, or change my diabetic sugar pills, or change my high blood pressure medicine, but Chris Meyer has declined to do anything about this.

Id., at ¶ 5.

Because, Plaintiff seeks to add two defendants and because the acts of at least one of the defendants, i.e., Dr. Jin, clearly occurred after the filing of the original complaint, i.e., on and after July 2006, the Plaintiff's motion to add two defendants will be treated as a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint. See, e.g., Klee v. Pittsburgh & W. Va. Railway Co., 22 F.R.D. 252, 254 (W.D. Pa. 1958)(a supplemental pleading is a pleading that recounts some matter that occurs after the beginning of the action or after a responsive pleading has been filed).

Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs supplemental complaints and provides in part that "Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit the party to serve a supplemental pleading." The purpose of Rule 15(d) is to serve judicial economy. Hassoun v. Cimmino, 126 F.Supp.2d 353, 360 (D.N.J. 2000) ("Rule 15(d) serves judicial economy"). As the use of the term "may" in Rule 15(d) suggests, "[t]he decision to grant or deny a motion to amend is entrusted to the sound discretion of the district court." Al-Ra'id v. Ingle, 69 F.3d 28, 33 (5th Cir. 1995). In exercising this discretion, the courts may "deny leave to supplement when it would cause undue delay or prejudice, to the opposing party, or if the supplementing party has shown bad faith or dilatory motive." ...


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.