Carlton T. Gallman v. Amanda Phipps, et al.

Summary

This Order and Report and Recommendation addresses motions in a pro se prisoner civil rights action concerning alleged inadequate medical treatment, disability accommodations, and related claims against Kentucky correctional officials and Wellpath LLC. The court recommends denying Wellpath’s motions to dismiss without prejudice and denying as moot the plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief concerning medication-assisted treatment. It also denies the plaintiff’s other pending motions, including a request to deem discovery responses admitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36.

Holdings

1. Wellpath's motions to dismiss should be denied without prejudice because they failed to identify the Rule 12 basis for dismissal, were filed after an answer limiting the availability of certain Rule 12 defenses, and relied on the bankruptcy confirmation plan without adequately explaining the relevant provisions or their application to Gallman's claims.
2. Gallman's motion for preliminary injunctive relief concerning medication-assisted treatment should be denied as moot because the requested treatment had been provided.
3. Gallman's motion to deem the Wellpath defendants' discovery responses admitted should be denied because, even assuming the responses were untimely due to being sent to an incorrect facility, withdrawal or amendment of any resulting admissions would promote resolution on the merits and would not prejudice Gallman while discovery remained open.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Wellpath's motions to dismiss should be denied without prejudice when they failed to identify the applicable Rule 12 ground and relied on an extrinsic bankruptcy confirmation plan without adequately explaining its application.
2. Whether Gallman's request for preliminary injunctive relief concerning medication-assisted treatment was moot after the requested treatment was provided.
3. Whether responses to requests for admission should be deemed admitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(3), or whether any resulting admissions should be withdrawn under Rule 36(b), where responses were sent to an incorrect facility but discovery remained open.
4. Whether Gallman's other motions should be denied for failure to state particularized relief or because the requested status inquiry was premature and could be pursued through discovery.

Disposition

other