Opinion ID: 3056331
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Moore’s Allegations Against Albury and Green

Text: On October 17, 2007, Moore filed a “formal grievance” against “Dade C.I. Security and the Medical Staff about the incident on September 23, 2007,” during which Moore was allegedly “assaulted with a baseball bat by [his] roommate[], . . . Jermain Preston.” Moore described the assault, but he did not mention any misconduct by prison personnel. The Warden denied Moore’s grievance. Moore argued, for the first time on appeal, that he had been mistreated by Albury. Moore alleged that, after he was assaulted, “S[ergeant] Albury . . . came and handcuffed [Moore] in a brutal manner and escorted [him] to Medical.” Moore also alleged that Sergeant Albury “handled [Moore] with reckless disregard” despite his “expla[nation] that [he] was in pain . . . .” The Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections denied Moore’s appeal. In the meantime, Moore filed a second grievance and alleged that he “had to ask for Medical Emergency just to be seen and treated.” The Warden returned the grievance as noncompliant with the grievance procedure. On November 28, 2007, 3 Case: 13-10346 Date Filed: 01/10/2014 Page: 4 of 19 Moore filed an amendment to his second grievance that alleged Green “handcuffed [him] in a brutal manner” and “handled [him] with reckless disregard” for his pain, but the Assistant Warden returned Moore’s amendment. Moore filed a complaint that alleged Albury used excessive force against him and that Green acted with deliberate indifference by delaying his medical care. Moore alleged that Albury “refus[ed] to call medical to the scene”; “threaten[ed] to do bodily harm to” Moore while he was lying on the ground; “violently placed [Moore] in handcuffs and brutally pulled [him] all the way to medical”; and “told [medical staff] that there was nothing wrong with [Moore].” Moore also alleged that Green “refused to call Medical on several occasions while [Moore] laid in the cell room in severe pain and [with] serious injuries.” Albury and Green moved for summary judgment. Albury argued that Moore failed to mention in his administrative grievances or appeals that he had been threatened, denied medical staff at the scene, drug to the medical unit, or had his medical examination influenced by Albury. Albury and Green also argued that they had not violated Moore’s constitutional rights by handcuffing him or ignoring him when he declared a medical emergency because he had received medical attention and he had not been harmed when being handcuffed or by having his treatment delayed. 4 Case: 13-10346 Date Filed: 01/10/2014 Page: 5 of 19 The district court adopted the recommendation of a magistrate judge and entered summary judgment in favor of Albury and Green. The district court ruled that Moore “failed to timely exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not raise any of his claims against Defendants Albury and Green in the October 17, 2007 grievance” and failed to explain why he could not comply with the grievance procedures. Alternatively, the district court ruled that Moore failed to establish “that the manner in which Albury handcuffed him amounted to the infliction of unnecessary and wanton pain” and that Moore failed to submit any “evidence that any delay in his treatment had any detrimental effect on his health.” B. Moore’s Requests for Service of Process on Wright, Chandilier, and Chamberlain After Moore obtained permission to proceed in forma pauperis, he began seeking assistance in locating Chandilier and Chamberlain. Moore moved for an order directing the defendants to produce “copies of document’s with the full names of Nurse Chandiler and Nurse Chamberlain and the private company name in which these two were employed,” but the magistrate judge denied Moore’s motion because he had not complied with an earlier order to amend his complaint. Based on the information in Moore’s amended complaint, the magistrate judge ordered the United States Marshal to serve process on “Ms. Wright, Classification Officer,” “Nurse Chandilier,” and “Nurse Chamberlain” at the “Dade Correctional Center, 19000 S.W. 377 Street, Florida City, Florida, 33034.” 5 Case: 13-10346 Date Filed: 01/10/2014 Page: 6 of 19 The Marshal was unable to execute service on Wright because there was “no first name provided” and “personnel employees at DCI stated there [was] no Ms. Wright at the . . . Florida City location.” The Marshal twice attempted service of process at Dade on Chandilier and Chamberlain, but the Marshal returned the summonses unexecuted because the nurses did “not work for [the] Department of Corrections” and “medical administration at DCI . . . stated they could not release information . . . on past employees.” The magistrate judge twice extended the deadline for Moore to obtain addresses. After the U.S. Marshal returned the summonses unexecuted, the magistrate judge ordered Moore to “supply . . . a current address for defendants Chandilier and Chamberlain on or before 2/28/10, or risk dismissal.” Later, the magistrate judge extended the deadline to file addresses for the two nurses and Wright “to on or before March 19, 2010.” In the meantime, the U.S. Marshal executed service of process on Jimmy Love, an officer at Dade, who was represented by the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Florida. Moore sought assistance from the magistrate judge. Moore moved the magistrate judge to extend the time for discovery and to issue an “order compelling the Department of Corrections to furnish to [the] Court[] Clerk and Marshals the last known addresses” for Wright, Chandilier, and Chamberlain and, in the alternative, requested the “appoint[ment of] counsel for the sole purpose of 6 Case: 13-10346 Date Filed: 01/10/2014 Page: 7 of 19 completing service of process.” The magistrate judge extended the deadline for discovery to April 2, 2010, and denied Moore’s request for appointed counsel. The magistrate judge did not address Moore’s request for assistance in obtaining addresses. Later, Moore moved the magistrate judge to direct the clerk to issue subpoenas to the custodian of records at Dade to produce a full name and address for Wright, and the last known addresses for Chandilier and Chamberlain. In his motions, Moore alleged that he had “exercised due diligence” to obtain the information through “institutional channels.” The magistrate judge denied Moore’s motions and directed him to “arrange for subpoenas with the Clerk of Court.” Later, the magistrate judge extended the time for discovery until October 14, 2010. On August 26, 2010, Moore requested that the defendants produce “the name of the company that employed the nurse’s that [were] on duty” and “the[] full names” of the nurses and Wright. Moore moved to compel a response, but the magistrate judge denied Moore’s motion on the ground that his request for discovery was untimely. Nevertheless, the magistrate judge granted Moore another extension of time to obtain addresses. Moore also sought assistance from Albury and Green, who were represented by the Attorney General of Florida. Moore requested that the defendants “submit[] directly” to the magistrate judge “for use by the Marshal’s Office” the “current 7 Case: 13-10346 Date Filed: 01/10/2014 Page: 8 of 19 addresses” for Wright, Chandilier, and Chamberlain. Although Moore’s certificate of service reflected that he provided a copy of his motion to prison officials to serve the Attorney General, the magistrate judge denied Moore’s request and a related motion to compel on the ground that he had to “send discovery requests directly to the defendants.” Moore again moved to compel discovery and requested that the “Defendants contact [the] private contractor [who had employed Nurses Chandilier and Chamberlain] and obtain [their] full names and addresses . . . to forward under seal to the Clerk of Court for serving processing.” The Attorney General responded that Moore had failed to comply with a local rule that required him to “confer with counsel for the opposing party . . . to resolve the issues” in his motion, see S. D. Fla. Rule 7.1, and that the addresses were unavailable. The Attorney General stated that, “[w]ith regard to . . . Wright, the addresses of Department employees are confidential and are not released until the person is served or until counsel has been authorized to represent the party,” and, “[a]s to Nurse Chamberlain and Nurse Chandilier,” they were “contract employees” whose “contact information [was] maintained [solely] by the contractor.” The magistrate judge denied Moore’s motion to compel and instructed Moore to “continue to attempt to discover the defendants addresses.” Moore learned from the Florida Department of Corrections that it had contracted with MHM Services, Inc. for nursing services, and Moore moved the 8 Case: 13-10346 Date Filed: 01/10/2014 Page: 9 of 19 magistrate judge to order the U.S. Marshal to serve “nurse Chandilier” and “nurse B.E. Chamberlain” at “MHM Services Inc, 1593 Spring Hill Road, Suite 610, Vienna, Virginia, 22182.” Moore “request[ed] that the order include all available information in regards to . . . [the] nurse[s] . . . to be provided directly to [the] U.S. Marshal for reasons of confidential issues.” Moore alleged that MHM “[had] all current information of [the] nurse[s] . . . such as full names and addresses that should be provided to U.S. Marshal for service processing.” The magistrate judge refused to “order a private company located in Virginia to provide confidential information as to its clients” and advised Moore that he would have “to obtain this information.” Moore sought assistance from the clerk, but received no response. Moore requested that the clerk “forward [a] copy of [the] summons and complaint to the U.S. Marshals or the Company of MHM Services Inc. in Vienna, Virginia, 22812 so services can be obtained,” and Moore requested that the clerk respond to his letter. Moore also filed with the clerk a notice requesting “information of [the] full name and last known address or current new job employment and address for Defendants Female nurse B.E. Chamberlain and Male nurse Chandilier.” The docket sheet does not reflect that the Clerk responded to Moore’s filings. Moore filed a motion to amend his complaint to which he attached a summons and waiver of service of summons for Wright, but Albury and Green 9 Case: 13-10346 Date Filed: 01/10/2014 Page: 10 of 19 moved to deny Moore’s motion. Albury and Green argued that Moore was “trying to obtain service on Wright, yet . . . [had] not provided an address or full name of the Defendant” and that “[m]ailing service forms to the Office of the General Counsel . . . is not proper service.” Undaunted, Moore mailed copies of the summons and complaint to Chandilier and Chamberlain at “MHM Service, Inc., 1593 Spring Hill Road, Suite 610, Vienna, Virginia, 22182,” and Moore filed copies of the documents in the district court. Moore moved for a default judgment against the two nurses, but the Clerk denied the motion because “service [had] not [been] completed.” The magistrate judge recommended that the district court dismiss Moore’s complaint against Wright, Chandilier, and Chamberlain for lack of service of process. Moore objected and argued that his efforts to serve process on Wright, Chandilier, and Chamberlain had been stymied unfairly. The district court overruled Moore’s objections and dismissed his complaint against Wright, Chandilier, and Chamberlain for failure to effect service of process.