Harrison v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JOSEPH HARRISON, #M55353,

Plaintiff, Case No. 21-cv-00762-SPM

v.

L. PITTMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MCGLYNN, District Judge: This matter is before the Court for the purpose of case management. Defendant Dr. Williams has still not been properly served. The record shows that the Clerk of Court sent requests for waivers of service and corresponding documents to Defendants’ place of employment, as provided by Harrison. Williams is no longer employed by Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”), and Wexford provided the Clerk with her last known address. The waiver of service was resent to this new address and returned as undeliverable on January 21, 2022. (Doc. 31). The Clerk issued a formal summons to be served by the United States Marshals Service that was also returned unexecuted. (Doc. 43). The marshal noted that Williams no longer lived at the residential address provided, and the home had been sold to the new owners the previous year. The marshal recorded that a public search of addresses and places of employment did not yield any results. (Id.). Wexford was then directed to provide the Clerk with updated contact information for Williams, and summons was reissued. (Doc. 44, 46). The summons was again returned unexecuted. The marshal who attempted service recorded that the address provided was the same address where service was previously attempted. (Doc. 50). Again, the marshal stated that a physical check of the address was conducted as well as researching allowable database searches, which did not yield an active address for Williams. (Id.). As it appeared that the United States Marshals Service had made reasonable efforts to

locate and serve Williams, albeit unsuccessfully, the Court informed Harrison that the responsibility now lays upon him to provide a valid address for Williams or she would be dismissed as a defendant. (Doc. 51, 56). In response, Harrison has filed three motions relating to the service of Williams. In the first motion, Harrison requests the Court to recruit him counsel in order to investigate and obtain a current address of Williams, since he is unable to possess Williams’s address as an incarcerated person. (Doc. 58). He also filed a motion explaining that he attempted to obtain Williams’s address through the use of the Freedom of Information Act, but his request was denied since he is incarcerated and not allowed to possess the address of correctional staff. (Doc. 66). He asks the Court to update and reissue the summons with Williams’s full name “Doris M. Williams,

MD” or in the alternative, compel the Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office or the Attorney General of Illinois to retrieve and provide Williams’s address. (Id.). Both motions are DENIED. (Doc. 58, 66). Harrison continues to demonstrate he is more than capable of representing himself in this matter, and the Court will not recruit counsel solely for the purposes of investigating and obtaining the whereabouts of Defendant Williams.1 Likewise, the Court does not have authority to compel the Illinois Attorney General’s Office to investigate and produce the address for Williams, who was not an employee of the Illinois Department of Corrections and, at this point in time, is not represented by the Illinois Attorney

1 In evaluating Harrison’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, the Court applies the factors discussed in Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007) and related authority. General’s Office. Harrison has also filed a motion in which he states he that he wrote the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (“IDFPR”) requesting Williams’s address. He has attached the response letter from the IDFPR stating that IDFPR would provide the requested

information pursuant to a court order that provides instructions on where to send the information and includes a process to ensure confidentiality of the information. (Doc. 67). Harrison asks the Court to issue such order. According to public records, Doris Marie Williams retains an active medical license in the state of Illinois.2 Thus, the Court finds no reason not to grant the motion. The motion is GRANTED, and the Court will direct IDFPR to provide to the Court an address for Williams. DISPOSITION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Appoint Counsel and the Motion in Response to Provide Dr. Williams Address filed by Plaintiff Harrison are DENIED. (Doc. 58, 66). The Motion to Order IDFPR to Provide Dr. Williams Address filed by Plaintiff Harrison is

GRANTED. (Doc. 67). IT IS THEREFORE FURTHER ORDERED that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation SHALL PROVIDE the Clerk of Court with the last known address for Dr. Doris M. Williams within 21 days. The information shall be used only for formally effecting service on Defendant Williams. Any documentation of the address shall be retained only by the Clerk of Court and the United States Marshals Service and shall not be maintained in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk or by the Marshal. The address will not be disclosed to Plaintiff Harrison.

2 See https://online-dfpr.micropact.com/lookup/licenselookup.aspx (last visited December 28, 2022). The Clerk is DIRECTED to send one copy of this order to: IDFPR, DPR Attn: General Counsel 555 W. Monroe, 5 Floor Chicago, IL 60661

Once the Clerk of Court has received the address from the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, the Clerk shall REISSUE the summons for Defendant Williams, and the United States Marshals Service shall make reasonable efforts to locate and serve the summons and Harrison’s Complaint on this defendant. The Clerk SHALL provide a copy of this Order along with the summons to the United States Marshals Service. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 29, 2022

s/Stephen P. McGlynn STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN United States District Judge