JACKSON v. WATSON (2020)

ORDER

This is a case in which the plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”), alleges that ODRC, its contractor Management and Training Corporation (“MTC”), and its staff violated his Eighth Amendment rights by using excessive force.

Pending is plaintiff's motion for investigation under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1) and (2). Plaintiff asks that I commence an investigation into North Central Correctional Complex (“NCCC”) Warden Neil Turner for allegedly interfering with plaintiff's attempt at perfecting service upon defendant Stephanie Clark, a former correctional officer at NCCC. (Doc. 23).

Plaintiff filed his complaint on August 22, 2019, (Doc. 1), and filed an amended complaint on November 8, 2019. (Doc. 5). On April 23, 2020, the front desk staff at NCCC accepted a FedEx package that included a copy of the amended complaint and summons. The FedEx package was meant for but did not reach Ms. Clark. (Doc. 19). Not having received the FedEx package, Ms. Clark did not respond to plaintiff's complaint.

Plaintiff then filed a motion for default judgment against Ms. Clark. (Doc. 20). After plaintiff moved for default, Mr. Turner discovered that the front desk at NCCC had accepted the package for Ms. Clark, who has not worked at NCCC since August 2018. (Doc. 21-1). Mr. Turner then mailed the summons and amended complaint to Ms. Clark's last known address. (Id.).

On June 10, 2020, I determined that “[d]ue to a clerical oversight, [Ms. Clark] had not been served with summons and Amended Complaint. Such service has now been perfected.” (Minute Entry dated June 10, 2020). As a result, I denied plaintiff's motion for default judgment without prejudice.

On June 29, 2020, Ms. Clark appeared in this case and responded to plaintiff's amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 27).

Plaintiff now asks that I grant his motion to investigate whether Mr. Turner tampered with an official proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1) and (2). (Doc. 23).

The gravamen of plaintiff's motion is that Mr. Turner was aware of the pending lawsuit, and of the process that Plaintiff attempted to serve upon Ms. Clark but kept that information “concealed” and thus violated federal law. (Doc. 23). Plaintiff claims that Mr. Turner should have forwarded the documents to Ms. Clark's last known address or notified the Court that NCCC had received the documents by mistake.

Although it did not happen as quickly as plaintiff would have liked, Mr. Turner did notify the Court about the mistake. Mr. Turner submitted an affidavit explaining that NCCC received a FedEx package addressed to Ms. Clark. (Doc. 21-1). In that same affidavit Mr. Turner explained the nature of the oversight that had occurred. (Id.). Mr. Turner also explained that Ms. Clark has not been a correctional officer at NCCC since August 2018. (Id.). I found Mr. Turner's explanation to be credible.

Plaintiff's motion for investigation is not warranted. I have previously found that service was not effectuated on Ms. Clark because of a clerical error at NCCC. Not because of any inappropriate conduct by Mr. Turner. I also note that Ms. Clark is no longer a correctional officer at NCCC. Thus, Mr. Turner was under no obligation to take the steps to resolve the issue. In any case, service has since been perfected upon Ms. Clark, and she has appeared in this case and responded to plaintiff's amended complaint.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED THAT

Plaintiff's motion be, and the same hereby is, denied.

So ordered.

JAMES G. CARR, Senior U.S. District Judge