Roach v. Hiland, 5:12-cv-00169

Plaintiff Antoine Roach, a KSP inmate, sued physician Steve Hiland and APRN Chanin Hiland alleging denial of medical care (Eighth Amendment) and state-law malpractice; claims against certain parties previously dismissed but Eighth Amendment claims proceed against these defendants in their individual capacities for damages and official capacities for injunctive relief.
Roach filed a second motion for summary judgment asserting unclean hands, alleging defendants committed perjury in interrogatory answers, attaching his medical records and case lists.
Defendants opposed and also moved for a new deadline for dispositive motions, stating they left DOC employment and may seek private counsel and lack convenient access to medical records.
Roach filed a motion to strike (challenging defendants’ filings); defendants responded.
The court evaluated Roach’s summary-judgment motion under Rule 56 standards, construing all inferences against the moving party.
The court denied Roach’s summary judgment and motion to strike, granted defendants a final extension to October 31, 2014 to file dispositive motions, and noted no dispositive motions were filed within the prior 60 days and medical records are available to counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Roach is entitled to summary judgment on his medical-care claims	Roach contends defendants lied in interrogatory answers and that the record (medical charts) plus cited cases establish liability; invokes unclean hands	Defendants dispute plaintiff's factual assertions and rely on need for further development; defended against summary judgment	Denied — plaintiff failed to show no genuine dispute of material fact; court draws inferences for defendants
Whether plaintiff's submissions (interrogatory responses, records) suffice to overcome summary judgment standard	Roach asserts his evidence proves claims and impeaches defendants	Defendants argue factual disputes remain and evidence is insufficient for judgment as a matter of law	Denied — mere submissions and allegations insufficient; plaintiff must present evidence enabling a reasonable trier of fact to find for him
Whether plaintiff's Motion to Strike should be granted	Roach sought to strike defendants’ filings as improper or untimely	Defendants opposed; court considered the timing and substance and found no basis to strike	Denied — court rejected strike request
Whether defendants should receive an extension to file dispositive motions	N/A	Defendants requested extension to seek private counsel and access records	Granted — final extension to October 31, 2014; noted prior 60 days passed without filings and records are available

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary-judgment standard and drawing inferences against moving party)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (plaintiff must present evidence on which a reasonable jury could find for plaintiff)
Street v. J. C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472 (6th Cir. 1989) (not every factual dispute defeats summary judgment)
Hartsel v. Keys, 87 F.3d 795 (6th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff must present a jury question as to each element)
Moinette v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 90 F.3d 1173 (6th Cir. 1996) (mere speculation cannot defeat a properly supported summary-judgment motion)