McCamey v. American Behavioral Health Systems Inc ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 TIMOTHY ADDISON MCCAMEY, CASE NO. 3:19-cv-00812-RBL-JRC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MISCELLANEOUS 12 v. MOTIONS 13 ADULT BEHAVIOR HEALTH SERVICES, et al., 14 Defendant. 15 16 This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, who is 17 incarcerated, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. See Dkt. 5. 18 This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to change defendant ABHS’ name in 19 the complaint (Dkt. 18), motion to compel discovery (Dkt. 21), second motion to compel 20 discovery (Dkt. 29), and motion to amend the complaint (Dkt. 30).1 The motions to amend the 21 complaint to change ABHS’ name are granted in part, although the name that ABHS identifies 22 23 1 Plaintiff has also filed a motion for court appointed counsel (Dkt. 36), which is not yet ripe for decision. And the Court will issue a separate report and recommendation on plaintiff’s 24 motion for default. Dkt. 19. 1 for itself—American Behavioral Health Systems, Inc.—will be used. Because plaintiff failed to 2 certify that he met and conferred with defendants before moving to compel, his motions to 3 compel are denied. 4 BACKGROUND 5 In August 2019, the Court directed service of plaintiff’s complaint. See Dkt. 7. Plaintiff 6 named “Adult Behavior Health Services (ABHS)” as a defendant. See Dkt. 6, at 1. ABHS 7 entered an appearance, listing its name as “American Behavioral Health Systems, Inc.” Dkt. 11, 8 at 2. Plaintiff then filed the pending motion to change defendant’s name in the complaint, asking 9 that ABHS’ name in the complaint be replaced with “American Behavior Health Services, Inc.” 10 Dkt. 18, at 1. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to amend his complaint, solely to change the name 11 of ABHS. Dkt. 30, at 1. 12 In response to plaintiff’s motion to amend, ABHS indicated that it did not oppose 13 amending the complaint to ABHS’ proper name, which is “American Behavioral Health 14 Systems, Inc.” See Dkt. 33, at 2. Plaintiff has not filed a reply in support of his motion to 15 amend. See Dkt. 16 Plaintiff has also filed two motions to compel in this matter. See Dkts. 21, 29. Neither of 17 plaintiff’s motions—which request information from ABHS—includes a certification that the 18 parties met and conferred regarding these issues. See Dkts. 21, 29. 19 DISCUSSION 20 I. Motions to Change ABHS’ Name and to Amend Complaint (Dkts. 18, 30) 21 The Court interprets plaintiff’s motion to change ABHS’ name in the complaint (Dkt. 18) 22 and to amend his complaint solely to change ABHS’ name (Dkt. 30) as motions to correct 23 24 1 ABHS’ name in the case caption to the proper name for this party. The Court GRANTS in part 2 the motions. 3 Although the Court will correct ABHS’ name in the case caption, ABHS has consistently 4 named itself as “American Behavioral Health Systems, Inc.” in this matter. See Dkts. 17, at 2; 5 27, at 3; 28, at 6; 33, at 2. Therefore, the name given by plaintiff in his motions to change 6 ABHS’ name is not accurate, either. See Dkts. 18, at 1; 30-1, at 1. Rather, ABHS’ name will be 7 corrected to “American Behavioral Health Systems, Inc.” 8 II. Motions to Compel 9 As noted, neither of plaintiff’s motions to compel includes a certification that he met and 10 conferred with the defendants from whom he seeks information before filings his motions. See 11 Dkts. 21, 29. Indeed, it appears that plaintiff filed his second motion to compel on the same day 12 that ABHS received plaintiff’s request in the mail. See Dkt. 34, at 2. 13 Plaintiff’s failures to certify that he conferred or attempted to confer with the named 14 defendants before filing his motions to compel, standing alone, merit denial of his motions. See 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); Local Civil Rule 37(a)(1). Although plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is 16 required to read and comply with the Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the 17 Court’s orders. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). The rule requiring that 18 the parties meet and confer is intended to encourage the parties to work out these types of issues 19 without court intervention. It is this Court’s experience that most of these issues can be resolved 20 without filing a motion. 21 Additionally, the Court notes that plaintiff expresses concern that he will be unable to 22 serve the complaint on defendants Zahn, Montaque, Del Real, Sanchez, and White. Defendants 23 Zahn and Montaque have waived service and have entered appearances in this action, including 24 1 providing their full names. See Dkt. 16. Moreover, defendants have filed addresses under seal 2 for defendants Del Real, Sanchez, and White, so that the Court is in the process of effecting 3 service on those defendants for plaintiff, who proceeds in forma pauperis. 4 Finally, to the extent that plaintiff demands that the Court impose fines on the law firm 5 representing certain defendants, plaintiff has again failed to comply with the procedural 6 requirements for such a request. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2) sets forth the 7 requirements for a motion to sanction opposing counsel, including filing the sanctions motion 8 separately from any other motion, serving it on the party, and allowing 21 days before filing the 9 sanction motion with the Court. Plaintiff has complied with none of these requirements, and his 10 request is denied. 11 CONCLUSION 12 Plaintiff’s motions to change ABHS’ name (Dkt. 18) and to amend (Dkt. 30) are granted 13 in part. The Clerk’s Office shall update the docket in this matter to reflect that defendant 14 ABHS’s name is “American Behavioral Health Systems, Inc.” Plaintiff’s motions to compel 15 (Dkts. 21, 29) are denied. 16 Dated this 5th day of December, 2019. 17 18 A 19 J. Richard Creatura 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24