Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Oladokun v. Correctional Treatment Facility

United States District Court, D. Columbia.

November 22, 2013


Page 8

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 9

Re Document Nos.: 7, 14, 17.

OLADAYO ADELEKE OLADOKUN, Plaintiff, Pro se, Lanham, MD.

For CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT FACILITY, D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendants: Anne Marie Orcutt, Daniel P. Struck, LEAD ATTORNEYS, STRUCK WIENEKE & LOVE, P.L.C., Chandler, AZ; Mariana del Valle Bravo, Matthew D. Berkowitz, CARR MALONEY PC, Washington, DC; Shermineh C. Jones, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CLD - General Litigation Section IV, Washington, DC.

For U.S. MARSHAL SERVICES, Defendant: Michelle Jean Seo, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Washington, DC.


RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge.

Page 10


Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Amend and Denying as Moot all Other Pending Motions


This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's " The Amend Motion Regarding Original Complaint Before the Court," which the Court interprets as a motion to amend the complaint. See ECF No. 17.[1] Defendant, Corrections Corporation of America, has opposed the motion. See ECF No. 21.[2] For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff's motion to amend will be granted.


Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se in this action, was a federal pretrial detainee that was held, by virtue of a contract between the USMS and the District of Columbia Department of Corrections (" DOC" ), at the Correctional Treatment Facility (" CTF" ), which is operated for DOC by the Corrections Corporation of America (" CCA" ). Plaintiff's original complaint filed in Superior Court, in its entirety, alleged the following: The defendants failed to give plaintiff proper care while in their custody. See ECF No. 6, Attach. 1 at 7. On August 11, 2010, Chief Magistrate Judge William Connelly in the District of Maryland, ordered the USMS, or its contracting agencies, because of plaintiff's then-recent surgery on his right hand, to have plaintiff promptly receive an evaluation by an appropriate health care provider and receive care and treatment consistent with the standard of care for the condition revealed by the evaluation.[3] Plaintiff alleged that his custodians, USMS, CCA, CTF, and DOC were negligent [4] for failure to provide him proper

Page 11

medical care for his surgically repaired broken hand. See ECF No. 1, Ex. 2. The USMS removed the case to this Court, see ECF No. 1, and subsequently moved to dismiss the claims against it. See ECF No. 14. DC, DOC, and CTF/CCA, have also moved to dismiss the claims against them. See ECF No. 7.

On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a " Motion to Amend the Original Complaint Before this Court." ECF No. 8. DC, DOC, and CTF/CCA, opposed the motion. ECF No. 9. The Court, treating the pleading as a motion because of its caption, granted the motion and ordered plaintiff to file his amended complaint by May 17, 2013. No such amended complaint was filed by that date. As such, on August 19, 2013, the Court ordered plaintiff to respond to the pending motions to dismiss, amend his complaint, or move for an extension, by September 19, 2013. ECF No. 16. In retrospect, the Court believes that pro se plaintiff intended the " motion" to be his amended complaint. On September 10, 2013, the pro se plaintiff filed another pleading captioned " The Amend Motion Regarding Original Complaint Before This Court." ECF No. 17. The Court will deem this pleading as plaintiff's proposed amended complaint (" Compl." ).

In what the Court deems as plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, plaintiff alleges the following: Plaintiff received reconstructive surgery on his broken right hand at Howard University in 2009. Compl. at 2. Because the hand did not heal properly, a second surgery was performed on August 4, 2010. Id. The surgeon ordered an aggressive regimen of physical therapy. Id. Unfortunately for plaintiff, he was arrested shortly thereafter and was detained pending trial. Id. Although plaintiff was ordered into the custody of the USMS, (due to a contractual arrangement between the USMS and the DOC), he was processed at the D.C. Jail and transferred to the CTF (which is operated by CCA as part of a contractual ...

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.