Allen v. Reid
| Decision Date | 29 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 15-cv-1905 (WMW/SER) |
| Parties | Paris Da'Jon Allen, Plaintiff, v. Kathy Reid, Kelly Classen, Dr. Stephen Craane, Dietician, and Nan Larson, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
The above-captioned case comes before the undersigned on the following motions: Plaintiff Paris Da'Jon Allen's ("Allen") First Motion for Continuance; Second Motion for Continuance; Motion for Sanctions; Motion for Declaratory Judgment; Motion to Appoint Counsel; Defendants Kathy Reid ("Reid") and Nan Larson's ("Larson") Motion for a Protective Order; Defendant Stephen Craane, M.D. ("Dr. Craane")'s Motion for Protective Order;1 Allen's Motions for Preliminary Injunction; Reid and Larson's Motion to Strike; Dr. Craane's Motion to Compel; Reid and Larson's Motion to Seal, and Allen's Motion re: Harassment.2 For the reasonsstated below, the Court recommends denying Allen's Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Motions for Preliminary Injunction. In addition, the Court denies Allen's Motions for Continuance, Motion for Sanctions, Motion to Appoint Counsel, Reid and Larson's Motion to Strike, and Allen's Motion re: Harassment. The Court grants in part an denies in part Reid, Larson, and Dr. Craane's Motions for Protective Order, and grants Dr. Craane's Motion to Compel, and Reid and Larson's Motion to Seal. Finally, the Court orders Reid and Larson to serve Allen with his medical records, and amends the scheduling order as described later in this Report and Recommendation and Order.
Allen is a prisoner who was confined at Minnesota Correctional Facility - Oak Park Heights ("MCF-OPH") when he filed his complaint.3 (Compl. for Violation of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, "Compl.") [Doc. No. 1 at 5]. He seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that Defendants, who were employees or contractors at MCF-OPH, violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide suitable alternative foods instead of eggs and by failing to treat his back and finger injuries. See (Am. Compl.) [Doc. No. 7].
Allen initiated this lawsuit on April 10, 2015, and filed his Amended Complaint three months later. (Compl.); (Am. Compl.). Allen previously filed several motions, and on March 15, 2016, the Honorable Jeffrey J. Keyes, United States Magistrate Judge, issued rulings on Allen'spending motions. See (Order & Mem. Dated Mar. 16, 2016, "Mar. Order") [Doc. No. 60]; (R&R Dated Mar. 16, 2016, "Mar. R&R") [Doc. No. 61]. Because some of the motions currently before the Court relate to Judge Keyes's rulings, those rulings will be described briefly.
In his March Order, Judge Keyes denied Allen's Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Mar. Order at 1). Judge Keyes found that Allen's previous attempts to get his medical records were filed through the prison grievance system, rather than through the discovery process. (Id. at 3). Because Allen had not attempted to seek discovery, because the Court had not ordered Defendants to produce any specific discovery, and because Allen did not show that he attempted in good faith to resolve this issue without further court action, Judge Keyes found Rule 37 sanctions unwarranted. (Id.). Judge Keyes also denied Allen's Motion to Appoint Counsel for the same reasons previous motions to appoint counsel were denied—because "neither the facts nor the legal issues involved in this [case] are so complex as to warrant the appointment of counsel" and because "Plaintiff has the threshold ability to articulate his claims and to argue his positions, and he is able to communicate effectively with the Court." (Order on Pl.'s Mots. to Appoint Counsel) [Doc. No. 40 at 2]; (Mar. Order at 4). Judge Keyes further concluded that "Allen's troubles getting access to his medical records does not mean that Allen cannot fairly present his case" and that "the fact that Allen has not yet prevailed on any of the motions he has filed" does not "mean that he lacks the ability to articulate his claims and argue his positions." (Mar. Order at 4).
Allen also sought "a [temporary restraining order ("TRO")] and preliminary injunction to ensure that he receive[s] proper medical care." (Mar. R&R at 2) (second alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Reid and Larson received the Court's permission to file an exhibit under seal because it contained Allen's medical records, which are classified as privatedata under Minnesota Statute section 13.85.4 (Defs. Reid & Larson's Mot. to Seal) [Doc. No. 37]; (Order Dated Feb. 16, 2016) [Doc. No. 41]. Reid filed an affidavit in support of her and Larson's opposition to Allen's motion. (Aff. of Kathryn Reid, "Reid Aff.") [Doc. No. 45]. Pursuant to the Court's Order, the Reid Affidavit included Exhibit C, filed under seal and containing "true and accurate copies of Allen's practitioner and nursing progress notes from November 2015 to the present." (Id. ¶ 4); see also (Ex. C, Attached to Reid Aff.) [Doc. No. 45-2]. Judge Keyes recommended that Allen's Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction be denied to the extent it sought relief unrelated to his Amended Complaint. (Mar. R&R at 4-5). Judge Keyes also recommended that the motion be denied to the extent it was related to the claims in his Amended Complaint regarding his medical care. See (id. at 5-7). In particular, using the Dataphase factors, Judge Keyes concluded that Allen did not establish he was likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction because he "failed to specify the medical condition for which he needs the care."5 (Id. at 5-6). Judge Keyes noted that although Allen alleged facts about medical care, it was focused on past medical care—from May 2015 to November 2015—and therefore, it was not clear "whether [Allen] has any current complaint about his medical care." (Id. at 6). Judge Keyes concluded that Allen's failure to show significant harm if his motion is denied demonstrated that Allen "has also not met his burden ofestablishing that any harm he may suffer if no TRO or injunction is entered outweighs the harm that might occur if his motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction is granted." (Id.). Next, Judge Keyes found that Allen did "not provide[] evidence sufficient to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims." (Id.). In reaching this conclusion, Judge Keyes reviewed the medical records Reid provided and found that they "do not show that there has been any failure to provide him with medical care and treatment." (Id.). Finally, Judge Keyes concluded that Allen did not establish "that the public interest would best be served" by the Court granting his motion. (Id.). On June 3, 2016, Judge Wright adopted the March R&R and affirmed the March Order over Allen's objections. See (Order Adopting Mag. J.'s R&R & Aff'g Mag. J.'s Order, "June Order") [Doc. No. 79].
In the motions currently pending before the Court, Allen repeats several allegations regarding the conduct of Reid and Larson's former attorney, Margaret Jacot ("Jacot"),6 and the medical records Reid filed under seal as part of her opposition to Allen's Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction.7 Many of these allegations have already been addressed by the Court. Given the repetitive nature of these allegations, the Court describes them here and analyzes them broadly. The Court then addresses the parties' various motions.
Allen's current motions demonstrate that he believes that Jacot did not participate indiscovery as contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.9 In particular, Allen believes Jacot tampered with his medical records or destroyed records, and that Reid's affidavit is "false."10 Allen argues that he has been denied access to his medical records, and this denial constitutes denial of his due process rights.11 Allen's claims are based on the fact that Exhibit C, which was attached to the Reid Affidavit and filed under seal, contained only part of his medical record.12 Allen requests that Jacot be enjoined from contacting him.13 In one motion, Allen seeks an order to search Jacot's home and car for what he believes are his missing medical records.14 Allen argues that neither Jacot nor Dr. Craane's attorneys were authorized to have access to his medical records.15 Allen argues that Judge Keyes was biased against him, and that an attorney contacted Judge Keyes on Allen's behalf.16
Allen also attempts to add claims to this case through his motions. He asserts that his equal protection rights have been violated and that Reid is interfering with his unspecified disability.17 Allen also refers to the violation of his due process rights, for which he claims Jacotis responsible.18
The Court first addresses Allen's contentions regarding his medical records, which are of central concern to Allen. Reid filed part of Allen's medical records with the Court. See (Reid Aff. ¶ 4). There is no Court order, nor any other reason that any defendant or Jacot was required, as Allen asserts, to file his medical records. As was the case at the time of Judge Keyes's Order, Allen has not submitted any evidence that he submitted written discovery that would have required Defendants to provide him his medical records. See (Mar. Order at 3). Additionally, Allen has been advised about the appropriate method for him to obtain discovery in this case. See (id. at 2) ( that Jacot "properly informed Allen that any pleadings or requests Allen makes regarding this lawsuit are to be sent to [Jacot] and not the prison staff directly"). To the extent Allen seeks redress for MCF-OPH employees' failure to follow their own procedures, that is not a claim raised in his Amended Complaint and thus cannot be addressed in this litigation. See (June Order at 14) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial