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.

McCamey v. American Behavioral Health Services

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

December 5, 2019

TIMOTHY ADDISON MCCAMEY, Plaintiff,
v.
ADULT BEHAVIOR HEALTH SERVICES, et al., Defendant.

          ORDER ON MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS

          J. Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge.

         This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, who is incarcerated, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. See Dkt. 5.

         This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion to change defendant ABHS' name in the complaint (Dkt. 18), motion to compel discovery (Dkt. 21), second motion to compel discovery (Dkt. 29), and motion to amend the complaint (Dkt. 30).[1] The motions to amend the complaint to change ABHS' name are granted in part, although the name that ABHS identifies for itself-American Behavioral Health Systems, Inc.-will be used. Because plaintiff failed to certify that he met and conferred with defendants before moving to compel, his motions to compel are denied.

         BACKGROUND

         In August 2019, the Court directed service of plaintiff's complaint. See Dkt. 7. Plaintiff named “Adult Behavior Health Services (ABHS)” as a defendant. See Dkt. 6, at 1. ABHS entered an appearance, listing its name as “American Behavioral Health Systems, Inc.” Dkt. 11, at 2. Plaintiff then filed the pending motion to change defendant's name in the complaint, asking that ABHS' name in the complaint be replaced with “American Behavior Health Services, Inc.” Dkt. 18, at 1. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to amend his complaint, solely to change the name of ABHS. Dkt. 30, at 1.

         In response to plaintiff's motion to amend, ABHS indicated that it did not oppose amending the complaint to ABHS' proper name, which is “American Behavioral Health Systems, Inc.” See Dkt. 33, at 2. Plaintiff has not filed a reply in support of his motion to amend. See Dkt.

         Plaintiff has also filed two motions to compel in this matter. See Dkts. 21, 29. Neither of plaintiff's motions-which request information from ABHS-includes a certification that the parties met and conferred regarding these issues. See Dkts. 21, 29.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Motions to Change ABHS' Name and to Amend Complaint (Dkts. 18, 30)

         The Court interprets plaintiff's motion to change ABHS' name in the complaint (Dkt. 18) and to amend his complaint solely to change ABHS' name (Dkt. 30) as motions to correct ABHS' name in the case caption to the proper name for this party. The Court GRANTS in part the motions.

         Although the Court will correct ABHS' name in the case caption, ABHS has consistently named itself as “American Behavioral Health Systems, Inc.” in this matter. See Dkts. 17, at 2; 27, at 3; 28, at 6; 33, at 2. Therefore, the name given by plaintiff in his motions to change ABHS' name is not accurate, either. See Dkts. 18, at 1; 30-1, at 1. Rather, ABHS' name will be corrected to “American Behavioral Health Systems, Inc.”

         II. Motions to Compel

         As noted, neither of plaintiff's motions to compel includes a certification that he met and conferred with the defendants from whom he seeks information before filings his motions. See Dkts. 21, 29. Indeed, it appears that plaintiff filed his second motion to compel on the same day that ABHS received plaintiff's request in the mail. See Dkt. 34, at 2.

         Plaintiff's failures to certify that he conferred or attempted to confer with the named defendants before filing his motions to compel, standing alone, merit denial of his motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); Local Civil Rule 37(a)(1). Although plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is required to read and comply with the Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court's orders. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). The rule requiring that the parties meet and confer is intended to encourage the parties to work out ...


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.