PLUMMER v. WELLPATH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ERIE DIVISION WILLIAM PLUMMER, ) ) 1:22-CV-00039-SPB Plaintiff, Vv 7S VS. RICHARD A. LANZILLO ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE WELLPATH, CORRECT CARE ) LUTI DR. ROBERT MAXA SOLUTIONS, ° , ) MEMORANDUM ORDER PLAINTIFF'S CHCA KIM SMITH, RNS GARY ARR ) MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR PRINKEY, DR B Y EISENBERG, ) LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED CRNP ANDREW LESLIE, RN ESSONNO, ) COMPLAINT DR. DANIJEL WECHT, DR. RICHARD ) WILLIAMSON, SUPERINTENDENT ) IN RE: ECF NO. 118. 119 OVERMEYER, DORINA VARNER, ) ASSISANT KERI MOORE, JOSEPH ) SILVA, DIRECTOR OF HEALTH ) SERVICE; CRNP WILLIAM ) SUTHERLAND, SUPERINTENDANT ) DEREK OBERLANDER, ) ) .

Defendants, Now pending before the Court are two motions filed by the Plaintiff William Plummer.

At ECF No. 118, Plummer has filed a motion to compel Defendant Williamson to provide him with a copy of their motion to dismiss and to compel Defendants Correct Care Solutions, Eisenberg, Leslie, Maxa, Sutherland, and Wellpath to do likewise. Given the delays associated with the prison mail system, see e.g., Bullock vy. Hice, 2022 WL 395044 at *2 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 2022), it is likely that Plummer is now in possession of these motions. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. However, out of an abundance of caution and as a one-time courtesy, the Court is mailing herewith copies of the motions and supporting briefs filed by the aforementioned . 1 Defendants to the Plaintiff. The Medical Defendants’ motion also contains over one hundred and seventy-five pages of exhibits. See ECF Nos. 110-1, 110-2. The expense, volume, and potential redundancy of these filings prevents the Court from sending a free copy of those exhibits to Plummer at this time.

Plummer has also filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. See ECF No. 119. Plummer explains that his proposed second amended complaint “deals with events that occurred before the original complaint was filed and events have relation to the claims in plaintiff's 1S‘ amended complaint filed on or about July 25, 2022, regarding defendants CRNP Andrew Leslie and CRNP Jean Essono.” ECF No. 119, 43. In effect, Plummer seeks to add additional factual background to his claims against Defendants Leslie and Essono. His motion to file a Second Amended Complaint is DENIED. However, construed as a motion to supplement his amended complaint, the motion is GRANTED. See, e.g, McIntosh v. Wetzel, 2022 WL 3293490, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2022) (construing filing as supplement to the amended complaint). The Clerk of Court is instructed to detach the proposed second amended complaint, docketed at ECF No. 119-1, and re-docket that filing as a Supplement to the existing amended complaint. The Defendants may, but are not required to, file supplemental briefing within fourteen days of the date of this order to the extent they wish to address any of the additional allegations set forth in Plummer’s supplement.

The Court advises Plummer that his responses in opposition to the motions to dismiss (ECF No. 105 and ECF No. 109) are due on or before October 17, 2022, and October 19, 2022, respectively.

DATED this 28th day of September, 2022.

BY THE COURT: RICHARD A. LANZILLO / UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE