Nash v. Connections CPS Inc.
1:16-cv-00896
D. Del.Dec 19, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Anthony A. Nash, a Delaware prison inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging claims against medical staff and Connections CSP, Inc.; Nash proceeded pro se and sought IFP status.
- Several defendants (medical defendants) moved to dismiss for insufficiency of service, asserting USMS delivered summonses to a Connections employee (Theo Gregory) not authorized to accept service.
- Nash had paid USMS fees and complied with court orders; Connections will not waive service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d).
- Court found dismissal inappropriate where there remained a reasonable prospect of obtaining proper service and ordered Connections (which had been served) to provide under seal last-known addresses and employment status for the individual medical defendants.
- Nash made multiple discovery and procedural motions (request for counsel, discovery conference/protective order, leave to depose CIO Elliot Clark, motion to determine sufficiency of admissions responses, motion for physical/mental exam, and motion to consolidate a related case) which the court denied or denied without prejudice for the reasons below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of service under Rule 12(b)(5) / Rule 4 | Service was attempted by USMS; packets delivered to a Connections employee — service should stand or plaintiff should get help to effect service | Packets were delivered to an employee not authorized to accept service; insufficiency warrants dismissal | Denied dismissal; court refused to dismiss and ordered Connections to provide addresses so plaintiff can effect personal service; assessed service fees against defendants for failing to waive under Rule 4(d) |
| Request for counsel | Nash cannot afford counsel, has limited legal resources, and needs help with discovery and trial preparation | No defendant argument recorded; standard is court discretion | Denied without prejudice — plaintiff has demonstrated ability to proceed and claims not so complex to require counsel now |
| Request for discovery conference / protective order | Requests Rule 26 conference and protective order re: work product and non-testifying experts | Scheduling order already entered; parties should resolve disputes before court intervention | Denied — no discovery conference needed; protective order unnecessary now; in camera submission allowed if dispute arises |
| Leave to depose CIO (cost deferral) | Plaintiff seeks to depose and defer or have court pay deposition costs pending judgment | Defendants oppose; court lacks authority to fund discovery for IFP plaintiff | Denied without prejudice — court will not advance deposition costs; plaintiff must pay or revisit later |
| Motion to determine sufficiency of admissions responses | Plaintiff contends state defendants' responses insufficient | State defendants responded; court reviewed responses | Dismissed — court found responses adequate |
| Motion for plaintiff's physical and mental exam (Rule 35) | Plaintiff requests his own exam (unclear who would pay) | Rule 35 authorizes court-ordered exam of a party only on motion by opposing party; court cannot appoint an examiner or fund it for plaintiff | Denied — court will not appoint or fund examinations for plaintiff |
| Motion to consolidate with separate case | Cases are essentially identical; consolidation would avoid duplication | — (noted differences) | Denied — different plaintiffs and incidents occurred in different years |
Key Cases Cited
- Umbenhauer v. Woog, 969 F.2d 25 (3d Cir. 1992) (district court has broad discretion before dismissing for insufficient service)
- MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086 (3d Cir. 1995) (Rule 4(m) 90-day service deadline and dismissal consequences)
- Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 1993) (standards and factors for requesting counsel for indigent civil litigant)
- Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492 (3d Cir. 2002) (factors to consider when appointing counsel in civil cases)
- Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2011) (no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel for pro se civil litigants)
- Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178 (3d Cir. 1984) (district court's inherent power to manage its docket and order procedures)
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (U.S. 1972) (court's inherent powers to manage affairs for orderly disposition)