Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Wilson v. Gilmore

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

July 15, 2015

JAMAR WILSON, Plaintiff,
v.
SUPERINTENDANT ROBERT GILMORE, et al., Defendants,

ORDER

LISA PUPO LENIHAN, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action alleging that his 8th amendment rights were violated when he was handcuffed in an excessively tight manner by the corrections officers at SCI-Greene, causing a broken bone. He further avers that he was denied medical attention and when he did receive treatment it was grossly inadequate. He names 7 John Joe Defendants, all of whom were allegedly employed by SCI-Greene as a nurse, corrections officers or supervisors.

By this order, the Court requests that counsel for Defendant Gilmore ascertain the full names and service addresses of the John Doe Defendants 1 and 2 who were allegedly involved in the incident complained of by Plaintiff, as well as the Jane Doe Defendant who allegedly treated Plaintiff after the incident. Counsel need not undertake to defend or indemnify these individuals at this juncture. This Order merely provides a means by which plaintiff may name and properly serve the Defendants.[1]

Counsel is hereby requested to produce the information specified above regarding the identity and service addresses of the John Doe Defendants by July 24, 2015. Once this information is provided, Plaintiff's Complaint shall be deemed amended to reflect the full names of these Defendants. Plaintiff must then provide Marshal 285 forms and service forms for these Defendants. If the forms are not provided by August 3, 2015, the undersigned will prepare a Report and Recommendation to dismiss these Defendants for failure to prosecute.

It is not clear to the Court what the role of John Doe 3 was in this case. In addition, it appears that Plaintiff's allegations as to the other three John Does are in a supervisory capacity. (See paragraph 8 of the complaint where plaintiff alleges that "John Does 4-6... Are responsible for the hiring, screening, training, and supervision of employees...."). It will be Plaintiff's responsibility to request adequate discovery to name these Defendants. If the Defendants are not identified by the close of the discovery period, they will be stricken from the Complaint.

Therefore, this 15th day of July, 2015, Counsel for Defendant Gilmore is Ordered to identify the seven John and Jane Doe Defendants as set forth above.

WIn accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1)(A), and Rule 72.C.2 of the Local Rules of Court, the parties are allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of issuance of this Order to file an appeal to the District Judge, which includes the basis for objection to this Order. Any party opposing the appeal shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the notice of appeal to respond thereto. Failure to file a timely notice of appeal will constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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