Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Jackson v. Ivens

United States District Court, D. Delaware

September 23, 2019

GEORGE A. JACKSON, Plaintiff,
v.
KEITH IVENS, M.D., et al., Defendants.

          George A. Jackson, Sussex Correctional Institution, Georgetown, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.

          Stuart B. Drowos, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, State of Delaware, Wilmington, Delaware.

          Counsel for Defendants State of Delaware, Delaware Department of Correction, Stanley Taylor, Richard Kearney, Carl C. Danberg, and James C. Welch.

          Daniel A. Griffith, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston L.L.C., Wilmington, Delaware.

          Counsel for Defendants Correctional Medical Services, Inc. and Correctional Medical Services of Delaware, Inc.

          Karine Sarkisian, White and Williams, Wilmington, Delaware.

          Counsel for Defendants Keith Ivens, M.D. and Prison Health Services, Inc.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Stark, U.S. District Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff, an inmate at the Sussex Correctional Institution ("SCI") in Georgetown, Delaware, originally filed this lawsuit pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking, among other things, damages for the alleged delayed diagnosis of sarcoidosis and access to certain specialist physicians for evaluation and treatment.[1] (D.I. 281 at 2) Now before the Court is Plaintiffs second motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), filed on November 26, 2018, his request for counsel, motion for evidentiary hearing, and amended motion for evidentiary hearing. (D.I. 297, 299, 306, 318) For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the second Rule 60(b) motion and deny as moot the remaining motions.

         II. BACKGROUND

         As discussed by the Court in its August 2, 2013 Memorandum Order, "Plaintiff and various defendants ha[ve] litigated this action in this Court for over a decade, and their disputes generated numerous opinions and orders, both from this Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit." (D.I. 281 at 2) (citing Jackson v. hens, 244 F.App'x 508 (3d Or. Aug. 8, 2007), and D.I. 201, 257, 258) In his Eighth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the Correctional Medical Services ("CMS") Defendants deliberately refused to provide adequate health care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (D.I. 201, 203) On September 28, 2012, the Court granted CMS Defendants' motion for summary judgment; the case was dismissed, and the Court entered judgment for the CMS Defendants and against Plaintiff. (D.I. 247, 258, 259)

         Plaintiff had previously settled claims with Defendants Dr. Keith Ivens ("Dr. Ivens"), Prison Health Service Inc. ("PHS"), and State Defendants Stanley Taylor ("Taylor"), Richard Kearney ("Kearney"), Carl C. Danberg ("Danberg"), and James C. Welch ("Welch") (collectively "State Defendants"). (See D.I. 169, 244, 260 at 4-5, 262 at 1) Plaintiff filed a motion to rescind and vacate acceptance of Defendants' Offer of Judgment and relief from summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). (D.I. 260) Prior to the Court ruling on the motion, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. (D.I. 265) On August 2, 2013, the Court denied the Rule 60(b) motion. (D.I. 281) On April 24, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed this Court's orders granting summary judgment and denying the Rule 60(b) motion. (D.I. 292) On November 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second Rule 60(b) motion and a request for counsel. (D.I. 297, 299) Plaintiff has also filed a motion for evidentiary hearing and an amended motion for evidentiary hearing. (D.I. 306, 318)

         On August 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration in support of his motion, opposed by the State Defendants. (D.I. 322, 323) Although untimely, the Court considers the declaration, but notes that it refers to results of medical testing conducted in June ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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