Woodard v. O'brien
| Decision Date | 10 January 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. C07-0121-MWB,C07-0121-MWB |
| Parties | ROBERT DANA WOODARD, Plaintiff, v. EDWARD O'BRIEN, JERRY CONNELLY, DURGA SATYAVOLU, SALLY POTTER, and LINDA BOFFELI, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
This matter concerns events that occurred while the plaintiff, Robert Dana Woodard, was incarcerated in the Anamosa State Penitentiary ("ASP") in Anamosa, Iowa, from August 30, 2006, to October 7, 2008. Woodard claims that while he was incarcerated in ASP, the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The defendants deny Woodard's allegation that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. They also argue Woodard has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Alternatively, the defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity from monetary damages.
Woodard filed this case on October 30, 2007. On April 10, 2008, the court issued an Initial Review Order directing service of the Complaint on the defendants, and setting an Answer deadline of June 9, 2008. Doc. No. 6. Attorney Patrick Ingram was appointed to represent Woodard in this matter, and Mr. Ingram entered an appearance on May 14, 2008. Doc. No. 11. On June 9, 2008, the defendants filed their Answer, denying Woodard's substantive allegations, and asserting affirmative defenses. Doc. No. 13.
On July 15, 2008, Woodard submitted a pro se motion for appointment of an expert medical witness and for payment of the expert's fees. Doc. No. 16. He also filed a pro se motion for injunctive relief to require ASP officials to comply with the medical orders from the University of Iowa regarding Woodard's care, and a motion for depositions of certain witnesses. Doc. No. 17. All three motions were docketed as sealed pro se correspondence and forwarded to Mr. Ingram for further action. See Docket text for Doc. Nos. 16 & 17. On August 4, 2008, Woodard sent a letter to the Clerk of Court to determine whether his pro se motions had been received. A Deputy Clerk advised Woodard that his motions had been forwarded to his attorney. Doc. No. 18.
On August 15, 2008, Woodard filed a pro se motion for dismissal of Mr. Ingram as his attorney and appointment of a new attorney to represent him. Woodard alleged Mr. Ingram was not representing his interests adequately, and Woodard had filed a grievance against Mr. Ingram with the state bar association. Doc. No. 19. On August 20, 2008, Mr. Ingram filed a motion to withdraw. Doc. No. 21. The court granted Woodard's motion for new counsel and Mr. Ingram's motion to withdraw, and appointed Jeffrey Lipman to represent Woodard. Doc. No. 22. Mr. Lipman entered an appearance on September 16, 2008. Doc. No. 25. On October 6, 2008, Mr. Lipman filed a designation of expert witness, and a request for payment of the expert's fees. Doc. Nos. 27 & 28. The request for expert fees was granted. Doc. No. 29. The court granted the defendants' motion to extend the deadline for dispositive motions in the case while the parties awaited review of Woodard's medical records by his expert witness and receipt of the expert's report. Doc. Nos. 30 & 31. On February 15 and 19, 2009, Woodard wrote to the Clerk of Court inquiring about the status of his case. Doc. Nos. 32 & 33. Copies of the letters were forwarded to Mr. Lipman for further action. See Doc. No. 33.
On March 17, 2009, the court granted the defendants' motion for leave to file a dispositive motion out of time, Doc. Nos. 34 & 35, and the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and supporting documents. Doc. No. 36. The case was referred tothe undersigned for review and the preparation of a report on and recommended disposition of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Doc. No. 37.
On June 8, 2009, Mr. Lipman filed a copy of the expert witness's report, together with a motion to withdraw as Woodard's attorney and a supporting brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 13 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).1 Doc. No. 40. The court denied Mr. Lipman's motion to withdraw, but indicated the brief submitted with the motion would be considered as part of the summary judgment record. Doc. No. 41. The court also authorized Woodard to file a pro se resistance to the motion for summary judgment, setting a deadline of July 31, 2009. Id. On June 19, 2009, Woodard filed a motion for extension of time to resist the motion for summary judgment. Doc. No. 43. The court found the motion to be moot based on the July 31, 2009, deadline, and directed the Clerk of Court to docket Woodard's motion as a partial resistance to the motion for summary judgment. Doc. No. 42; see Doc. No. 43.
On June 29, 2009, Woodard wrote a pro se, ex parte letter to the court alleging the Iowa Department of Corrections ("Iowa DOC") had falsified portions of his medical records. The court scheduled a hearing with Woodard and the parties' attorneys to discuss the matter, and as a result of the hearing, the court ordered Mr. Lipman to assist Woodard in preparing an affidavit regarding his allegation that his records had been falsified. Doc. Nos. 44, 45 & 46.
On July 28, 2009, Woodard submitted a pro se resistance to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Doc. No. 47. On July 30, 2009, he submitted a supplemental resistance. Doc. No. 48. On August 3, 2009, the defendants filed a reply to Woodard's pro se resistances. Doc. No. 49. On August 11, 2009, Mr. Lipman filed Woodard's affidavit regarding his allegation that his medical records had been falsified, and an appendix containing 86 pages of Woodard's medical records. Doc. No. 50. On September 25, 2009, the defendants filed a reply and resistance to Woodard's affidavit. Doc. No. 55. On December 9, 2009, Woodard sent a letter to the court containing additional arguments regarding his case, Doc. No. 57, which the court deemed to be a further pro se resistance to the motion for summary judgment. The court received additional correspondence from Woodard on January 7 and 14, 2010. Doc. Nos. 57 & 58.
On January 14, 2010, the undersigned submitted a Report and Recommendation on the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The undersigned recommended the defendants' motion be granted as to the defendant Edward O'Brien, and denied as to the other defendants. Doc. No. 59. On January 28, 2010, the defendants filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Doc. No. 62.
On February 3, 2010, Woodard filed a motion to reopen the evidence to allow him to obtain an expert opinion from an ophthalmologist. Doc. No. 63. The court found good cause to reopen the evidence and granted the motion, directing Woodard to file his expert report by February 22, 2010. Doc. No. 64. The court granted Woodard's request for expert fees on February 4, 2010. Doc. No. 66. On the same day, the defendants filed a resistance to Woodard's motion to reopen the evidence and a motion for reconsideration of the court's order allowing Woodard to reopen the evidence. Doc. No. 67. The defendants argued it would be unfair to allow Woodard to bolster his claims after the court had already issued its report and recommendation on the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Id. The court found that the defendants would not be prejudiced by allowing Woodard to submit additional evidence in the case, given that once the record was closed, the undersigned would issue a supplemental report and recommendation, and the defendants would have sufficient time to assert objections. Accordingly, the court denied the defendant's motion to reconsider. Doc. No. 68.
On February 8, 2010, Woodard filed an unopposed motion for an extension of time to supplement the summary judgment record. Doc. No. 69. In lieu of granting that motion, Judge Mark W. Bennett issued an order denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment without prejudice, and directing the undersigned to issue a new scheduling order. Doc. No. 70. A scheduling order was entered on February 9, 2010, establishing deadlines for Woodard to designate his expert witness(es), for the defendants' responsive expert designations, and setting a new dispositive motion deadline of June 14, 2010. Doc. No. 71. The court subsequently received additional pro se correspondence from Woodard, which was forwarded to his attorney for any appropriate action. Doc. Nos. 72, 73, & 74. The court approved Woodard's motion for expenses to obtain medical records. Doc. Nos. 75 and 76. On April 22, 2010, the court held a status conference with the parties' attorneys. As a result of that conference, a revised scheduling order was issued extending the deadlines in the case. Doc. No. 79. A bench trial was scheduled for May 9, 2011, before Judge Bennett. Doc. No. 80.
On November 1, 2010, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment that is substantially similar to their previous motion for summary judgment. Doc. No. 82. As before, the defendants argue they were not indifferent to Woodard's serious medical needs; Woodard failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. The court granted Woodard's motion for an extension of time to resist the motion for summary judgment. Doc. Nos. 83 & 85.
On December 21, 2010, Woodard's attorney filed another Anders motion to withdraw as counsel, accompanied by a brief and the opinions of experts hired by Woodard to review the case. Doc. No. 84. The court ordered that Woodard could file a pro se resistance to the motion for summary judgment, Doc. No. 85, and Woodard filed his pro se resistance on January 6, 2011, Doc. No. 86.
The defendant's motion for summary judgment is now fully submitted, and the court turns to consideration of the motion.
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions for summary judgment and provides that either party to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial