Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Quiles v. Shoney

United States District Court, District of Massachusetts

August 15, 2014

ABIMELEC QUILES
v.
JEFF SHONEY, et al.

ORDER

RYA W. ZOBEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prisoner in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Corrections (“DOC”), filed this action against a number of employees of the DOC as well as employees of the Massachusetts Partnership for Correctional Health Care (“MPCH”) which provides medical care to prisoners pursuant to contract with DOC. He complains against the medical provider defendants for negligent care and deliberate indifference to his medical needs, and against the DOC defendants for their failure to take disciplinary actions against the medical defendants. All parties have filed motions which should be addressed in order.

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Schedule Case Management Conference (Docket # 30) seeks a conference to consider settlement. While the court certainly wishes to encourage resolution by agreement, the fact that almost all defendants have moved to dismiss suggests that those motions need to be addressed first. Accordingly, the motion is allowed. However, a scheduling conference will be held after these motions are decided if it is still necessary at that time.

2. Certain defendants’ Motions to Waive Local Rule 7.1(a)(2) (Docket ## 33 and 35) are allowed.

3. DOC defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint (Docket # 39) is allowed.

4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket # 40) seeks to prevent DOC defendants “from retaliating against plaintiff as a result of plaintiff’s filing civil action against them.” Attached are a large number of recent grievances plaintiff had filed all of which were denied. The motion is denied because the uniformly adverse decisions do not, without more, show retaliation.

5. The medical defendants’ Motion for Referral to a Medical Malpractice Tribunal (Docket # 37) is deferred until the motions to dismiss have been decided.

6. Both sets of defendants have filed motions to dismiss (Docket ## 36 and 41). Plaintiff has responded to that of the medical defendants, but has not yet submitted an opposition to the motion of the DOC defendants. He may file that opposition by September 5, 2014. The court will thereafter decide both motions on the papers.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.