Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

17-2380 - NAYLOR v. TALBOT et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
17-2380 - NAYLOR v. TALBOT et al
September 15, 2017
PDF | More
Entry Screening Complaint, Dismissing Certain Claims and Directing Further Proceedings - First, claims against Duane Alsip must be dismissed because the allegations asserted against him do not implicate a constitutional right. The allegations against defendant Dr. Paul Talbot are sufficient to allege that Dr. Talbot was deliberately indifferent to Mr. Naylor's serious medical needs: specifically, his need for a bottom bunk and range pass and the ability to carry his Imodium and acid reflux medications. These allegations implicate Mr. Naylor's Eighth Amendment rights. These claims shall proceed as submitted and the Court will consider if Mr. Naylor is entitled to injunctive relief regarding cell placement and the ability to carry medications, as well as, money damages. The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendant Dr. Paul Talbot in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint filed on July 13, 2017, applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. See entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/15/2017. (Copy mailed to Dr. Paul Talbot and Douglas Bitner) (MEJ)
April 2, 2018
PDF | More
Entry Denying Motion for Leave to Amend Presently before the Court is the plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. For the reasons explained below, the motion to amend, dkt 33, is denied. The plaintiff filed the presently pending motion for leave to file an amended complaint after the deadline passed on February 15, 2018. The plaintiff claims that not "amending the complaint would be a tragedy." Dkt. 33 at 2. He asserts that the proposed amended complaint is much easier to read and in compliance with court rules. The plaintiff does not state in his motion that he is seeking to add new claims. These are all new claims that should have been raised by the December 26, 2017 deadline, therefore, the motion to file an amended complaint, dkt. 33 is denied. Nothing in this Entry prohibits the plaintiff from raising these claims in a new civil action. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/2/2018. (NAD)