United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER
C.W.
Hoffman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge.
Presently
before the court is Nevada state-prison inmate Frank Patrick
Birch, Jr.'s (“Birch”) Sworn Statement (ECF
No. 53), filed on March 14, 2017. Defendant Joe Lombardo
(“Lombardo”) filed a response (ECF No. 57) on
March 30, 2017. Birch filed a reply (ECF No. 64) on April 5,
2017.
Also
before the court is Birch's Motion/Request for Order (ECF
No. 65), filed on April 5, 2017. Defendants did not file a
response.
Also
before the court is Birch's Motion to Strike (ECF No.
66), filed on April 5, 2017. Lombardo filed a response (ECF
No. 70) on April 19, 2017. Defendants NaphCare, Inc.
(“NaphCare”) and Larry Williamson, M.D.
(“Dr. Williamson”) filed a joinder (ECF No. 71)
to Lombardo's response on April 20, 2017. Birch filed a
reply (ECF No. 76) on April 26, 2017.
Also
before the court is Birch's Motion for Order of
Prohibition Against NaphCare (ECF No. 67), filed on April 12,
2017. NaphCare and Dr. Williamson filed a response (ECF No.
74) on April 27, 2017. Birch filed a reply (ECF No. 84) on
May 10, 2017.
Also
before the court is Birch's Motion for Order of
Prohibition Against Sheriff (ECF No. 68), filed on April 12,
2017. Lombardo did not file a response.
Also
before the court is Birch's Motion for Sheriff to Stop
Offering False Evidence (ECF No. 69), filed on April 12,
2017. Lombardo filed a response (ECF No. 72) on April 26,
2017. NaphCare and Dr. Williamson filed a joinder (ECF No.
73) to Lombardo's response on April 26, 2017. Birch filed
a reply (ECF No. 83) on May 10, 2017.
Also
before the court is Birch's request for certificate of
interested parties (ECF No. 75), filed on April 26, 2017.
NaphCare and Dr. Williamson filed a response (ECF No. 82) on
May 10, 2017. Lombardo filed a joinder (ECF No. 89) to
NaphCare and Dr. Williamson's response on May 23, 2017.
Birch did not file a reply.
Also
before the court is NaphCare and Dr. Williamson's Motion
for Entry of a Protective Order (ECF No. 90), filed on May
25, 2017. Birch filed a response (ECF No. 93) on June 1,
2017. Lombardo filed a joinder (ECF No. 94) to the motion for
protective order on June 5, 2017. NaphCare and Dr. Williamson
filed a reply (ECF No. 96) on June 8, 2017.
Also
before the court is Birch's Motion to Strike (ECF No.
91), filed on May 25, 2017. Defendants did not file a
response.
Also
before the court is Birch's Exhibits to Show Abuse and
Neglect (ECF No. 92), filed on May 26, 2017. NaphCare and Dr.
Williamson filed an objection (ECF No. 95) on June 6, 2017.
Lombardo filed a response (ECF No. 97) on June 9, 2017. Birch
filed a reply (ECF No. 98) on June 22, 2017.
Also
before the court is Birch's Motion to Compel Discovery
and for Sanctions (ECF Nos. 100, 101), filed on June 29,
2017. NaphCare and Dr. Williamson filed a response (ECF Nos.
102, 103) on July 12, 2017. Birch did not file a reply.
Also
before the court is Birch's Motion for 90 Day Extension
of Time for Good Cause (ECF No. 106), filed on July 21, 2017.
Lombardo filed a notice of non-opposition (ECF No. 109) on
July 31, 2017. NaphCare and Dr. Williamson did not file a
response.
I.
BACKGROUND
This
case arises out of a dispute regarding whether Birch received
adequate medical care while incarcerated at the Clark County
Detention Center. At the screening stage of this case, the
court allowed Birch to proceed on his claim for deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs related to weight loss,
a heart condition, and back pain against Lombardo, Dr.
Williamson, and NaphCare. (Screening Order (ECF No. 6);
Compl. (ECF No. 7).) The court subsequently dismissed
Lombardo from this case. (Mins. of Proceedings (ECF No.
126).) Further, the court granted in part and denied in part
NaphCare and Dr. Williamson's motion to dismiss and
permitted Birch to file an amended complaint. (Id.)
Birch's
amended complaint brings what the court understands to be a
claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
related to his heart condition and back pain against
NaphCare. (Am. Compl. (ECF No. 125).) Dr. Williamson is no
longer named as a defendant. (See id.) Thus, the
only remaining claim is Birch's deliberate indifference
claim against NaphCare. NaphCare's motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 127) is pending before the United States
district judge assigned to this case. This order addresses
all other pending motions in this case.
II.
SWORN STATEMENT (ECF NO. 53)
Birch's
document titled “Sworn Statement” is an amalgam
of assertions regarding his medical condition, various
references to Bates-stamped documents, arguments regarding
the prison's policies and grievance procedures, and
statements regarding Aramark, which Birch states is a company
responsible for serving prison meals. Birch also attaches a
photograph, medical records, and various inmate grievances to
his sworn statement. Lombardo responds that the sworn
statement does not request specific relief and therefore
should be ignored. Lombardo also argues that to the extent
Birch has complaints regarding prison conditions, Birch must
exhaust prison administrative procedures before seeking
relief from the court.
Under
Local Rule IA 7-1,
[a]ll communications with the court must be styled as a
motion, stipulation, or notice, and must be filed in the
court's docket and served on all other attorneys and pro
se parties. The court may strike any case-related
correspondence filed in the court's docket that is not
styled as a motion, stipulation, or notice.
Given
that Birch's sworn statement is not filed as a motion and
that it is unclear what relief Birch seeks by way of this
filing, the court will strike the document under Local Rule
IA 7-1. If Birch seeks relief from the court, he is advised
to style his requests for relief as motions. Although the
court will liberally construe Birch's filings because he
is not represented by an attorney, Birch nevertheless is
required to follow the same rules of procedure that govern
...