Opinion
22-3188-JWL-JPO
10-24-2022
JAMES RICHARD DUDLEY, Plaintiff, v. FNU WARREN, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JAMES P. O'HARA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is now an inmate at the El Dorado Correctional Facility but was incarcerated at the Hutchinson Correctional Facility (HCF) at the time of the events underlying the complaint. Plaintiff alleges that in March 2021, defendant Warren, a response team member, subjected him to excessive force by deploying pepper spray on him after he had stopped fighting with another inmate.
Attachments to the complaint show that on March 15, 2021, plaintiff entered a plea of guilty to disciplinary charges of fighting and interference with official duties, and that on March 18, 2021, he was found not guilty of disciplinary charges of disobeying orders. (Doc. 1, Exs. 1 and 2.) 1
The Court finds that the proper processing of Plaintiff's claims cannot be achieved without additional information from appropriate officials of the HCF. See Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978); see also Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the Court orders the appropriate officials of the HCF to prepare and file a Martinez Report. Once the report has been received, the Court can properly screen Plaintiff's claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that:
(1) The Court will enter a separate e-service order directing the Clerk of Court to serve Defendant Warren.
(2) The Kansas Department of Corrections (“KDOC”) shall submit the Martinez Report within sixty (60) days following the electronic filing of the Waiver of Service Executed. Upon the filing of that Report, the Court will screen Plaintiff's Complaint. If the Complaint survives screening, the Court will enter a separate order setting an answer deadline. Therefore, any answer deadline provided in the docket entry for the waiver of service is not controlling.
(3) Officials responsible for the operation of the HCF are directed to undertake a review of the subject matter of the Complaint:
a. To ascertain the facts and circumstances;
b. To consider whether any action can and should be taken by the institution to resolve the subject matter of the Complaint; and
c. To determine whether other like complaints, whether pending in this Court or elsewhere, are related to this Complaint and should be considered together.
(4) Upon completion of the review, a written report shall be compiled which shall be filed with the Court and served on Plaintiff. The KDOC must seek leave of the Court if it wishes to file certain exhibits or portions of the report under seal or without service on Plaintiff. Statements of all witnesses shall be in affidavit form. Copies of pertinent rules, regulations, official documents, and, wherever appropriate, the reports of medical or psychiatric examinations shall be included in the written report. Any recordings related to Plaintiff's claims shall also be included.
(5) Authorization is granted to the officials of the HCF to interview all witnesses having knowledge of the facts, including Plaintiff.
(6) No motion addressed to the Complaint shall be filed until the Martinez Report required herein has been prepared.
(7) Discovery by Plaintiff shall not commence until Plaintiff has received and reviewed any Court-ordered answer or response to the Complaint. This action is exempted from the requirements imposed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a) and 26(f).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter KDOC as an interested party on the docket for the limited purpose of preparing the Martinez Report ordered herein. Upon the filing of that report, KDOC may move for termination from this action.
Copies of this order shall be transmitted to Plaintiff, to Defendant, and to the Attorney General for the State of Kansas.
IT IS SO ORDERED.