Peterson v. USA et al
| Stephen Desmund Peterson |
| USA, USP-Victorville Medical Staff, USP-McCreary Medical Staff, Springfield Medical Center Staff and John or Jane Doe |
| 6:2014cv00134 |
| June 9, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| London Office |
| McCreary |
| PSO |
| Karen K. Caldwell |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
61
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Appeal Notice (DE 56), Motion for Reconsideration (DE 57) and Motion to Amend (DE 60) are hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 12/14/17.(RC)cc: COR, paper copy of Order w/NEF to pro se plaintiff via U.S. Mail
|
|
Filing
49
OPINION AND ORDER: 1. the Magistrate Judges Order denying any discovery-related relief (DE 39) is ADOPTED as and for the opinion of the Court; 2. the Plaintiffs objections to the Magistrate Judges Order (DE 43) are OVERRULED; 3. the Magistrate Judg es Recommended Disposition (DE 42) is ADOPTED as and for the opinion of the Court; 4. the Plaintiffs objections to the Magistrate Judges Recommended Disposition are OVERRULED 5. the Defendants Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative For Summary Jud gment (DE 23) is GRANTED on the basis that Plaintiffs FTCA claim is time-barred. 6. a judgement consistent with this Opinion will be entered contemporaneously.. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 10/31/2017. (JMB)cc: COR, Stephen Desmund Peterson via US Mail
|
|
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1) The motion for reconsideration filed by Plaintiff Stephen Desmund Peterson a/k/a Scott Desmond Peterson [R. 14] is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART, as follows: a) the April 13, 2016, Memorandum Opinion & Orde r and Judgment docketed at [R. 12] pp. 6-9; p. 37, 1, is PARTIALLY SET ASIDE to allow Petersons FTCA 16 negligence claims against the USA to proceed; and (b) Petersons motion for reconsideration as to the dismissal of his constitutional claim s asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is DENIED, and the dismissal of Petersons Bivens claims against the individually named USP-McCreary and USP-Big Sandy defendants as set forth in the Opinion and Order (docketed at R. 12) remains in FU LL FORCE AND EFFECT; 2) A Deputy Clerk in the London Clerk's Office shall prepare a "Service Packet" consisting of the following documents: a) a completed summons form; b) The Complaint [R. 1]; the Memorandum Opinion and Orders ent ered herein on January 22, 2015 [R. 8] and on April 16, 2016 [R. 12]; c) this Memorandum Opinion and Order; and d) a completed USM Form 285; 3) The London Deputy Clerk shall deliver the "Service Packet" to the USMS in Lexington, Kentucky, a nd note in the docket the date that the Service Packet was delivered; 4) The USMS shall serve the United States of America by sending a Service Packet by certified or registered mail to: a) the Civil Process Clerk as the Office of the United States A ttorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky; b) the Office of the Attorney General of the United States, Washington, D.C.; and c) the Central Office of the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Washington, D.C.; 5) Peterson must immediately advise the Court of any change in his current mailing address. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of his case; 6) Peterson must communicate with the Court solely through notices or motions filed with the Clerk of Court. The Court will disregard corresponden ce sent directly to the Judge's chambers; 7)With every notice or motion filed with the Court, Peterson must (a) mail a copyto the defendant (or the defendants attorney); and (b) at the end of the notice or motion, certify that he has mailed a co py to the defendant (or the defendants attorney) and the date on which this was done. The Court will disregard any notice or motion which does not include this certification; 8( This matter is REFERRED to a United States Magistrate Judge for all furt her disposition, to establish a discovery and dispositive motions scheduled, if or when required, and to conduct all further proceedings, and prepare proposed findings of fact and recommendations on any dispositive motions; 9) The Clerk of the Court shall ASSIGN this matter to a Magistrate Judge; 10) The Clerk of the Court shall TRANSMIT a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, referencing Case No. 16-5500. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 10/18/2016.(RC)cc: COR, Clerk 6CCA, paper copy to pro se filer,
|
|
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: 1) Plaintiff Steven Peterson's complaint filed against the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act is DISMISSED because the district lacks jurisdiction to consider it because it was not timely presented to the United States of America. 2) Plaintiff's Bivens claims against the Director of the BOP, Charles Samuels, Jr.; J.C. Holland, Warden; Eric Wilson former Warden; B. Ives, former Warden; J. Ray Ormond, Assistant/Acting Warden; H. Qu ay, Acting Warden; Norbert Rosario, M.D.; B. Barron, Hospital Administrator; Rhonda Jones, Hospital Administrator; Larry Stephens, Assistant Hospital Administrator; Electra Kaloudis, Reading Radiologist; W. Wood, 4A Counselor; and James Kelly, Duty O fficer are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim against them for which relief can be granted. These defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 3) Plaintiff's Bivens claims against Neil Stephens, Karen Bennett-Baker, A. Brya nt-PA-C, Matthew Zagula and Richard Ramirez, M.D. are DISMISSED for failure to establish that these defendants have been deliberately indifferent to Peterson's serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. These defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on these claims. 4) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law negligence claims Peterson may have against any defendant. 5) Peterson&# 039;s broadly construed state law negligence claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to his right to pursue in state court. 6) All claims having been resolved against all defendants, this action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the docket. 7) Judgment shall be entered in favor of the Defendants. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 4/13/2016.(RC)cc: COR, paper copy to pro se filer
|
|
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Plaintiff's motion to amend the Complaint [R. 6 ] is DENIED. 2. This matter stands submitted for completion of the statutory screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 08/14/2015.(KJA)cc: COR, mailed paper copy to pro se filer
|
|
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: 1) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, Petersons constitutional claims against the USP-Victorville defendants (Hospital Administrator, name unknown, Victorville Medical Department; Dr. Jesus Fernandez, Medical Director; Jim my Elevazo, health care provider; Ann Pierce, health care provider; and Gerald Cheney, health care provider) set forth in Petersons Complaint [R. 1] are SEVERED from this action and are TRANSFERRED to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for all further disposition; 2) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, Petersons constitutional claims against the FTC-Oklahoma defendants (unknown name Hospital Administrator, Medical Department; Dr. Tom Goforth, M.D.; PA, E. Barby, health ca re provider; Jonah Zwemer, reading radiologist; and Dr. Ernest, physician) set forth in Petersons Complaint [R. 1] are SEVERED from this action and are TRANSFERRED to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma for further dispositio n; 3) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, Petersons constitutional claims against the FMCP Springfield defendants (Ryan Toliver, health care provider; Ernesto Gapasin, M.D.; Joseph Christ, orthopedic therapist; Jinna Su Chen, radiologist; and Gregory Dau s, M.D., orthopedic specialist) set forth in Petersons Complaint [R. 1] are SEVERED from this action and are TRANSFERRED to the U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri for all further disposition; 4) The court DECLINES to exercise supplement al jurisdiction over Petersons state law negligence/medical malpractice claims against the following non-BOP personnel in California: Dr. Louis Redix, orthopedic surgeon; E. Fiervo, scrub nurse, Barstow Community Hospital, Barstow, California; name u nknown, circulator, Barstow Community Hospital, Barstow,California; Dr. Shay, anesthesiologist, Barstow Community Hospital, Barstow, California; Greg Wierzbowski, M.D., radiologist, Mr. or Ms. Russell, supervising nurse, Barstow Community Hospital, B arstow, California; and unknown owners, CEOs, and administrators of Barstow Community Hospital, Barstow, California. Petersons state law negligence/medical malpractice claims against these named defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to his right to refile in state court in California; 5) The court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Petersons state law negligence/medical malpractice claims against defendant Patrice Beliveau, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon in London, Kentucky. P etersons state law negligence/medical malpractice claims against Patrice Beliveau, M.D., are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to his right to refile in state court in Kentucky; 6) Matter stands submitted for completion of initial screening. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 1/22/2015.(RC)cc: COR, paper copy pro se filer
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
