Mark Anthony Christians v. Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, Contract Food Service Provider at SDSP-Jameson, in its individual and official capacity

D. South Dakota

Mark Anthony Christians v. Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, Contract Food Service Provider at SDSP-Jameson, in its individual and official capacity

DecidedOctober 20, 2025

Docket4:23-cv-04137

StatusUnknown

This text of Mark Anthony Christians v. Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, Contract Food Service Provider at SDSP-Jameson, in its individual and official capacity (Mark Anthony Christians v. Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, Contract Food Service Provider at SDSP-Jameson, in its individual and official capacity) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. South Dakota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mark Anthony Christians v. Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, Contract Food Service Provider at SDSP-Jameson, in its individual and official capacity, (D.S.D. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARK ANTHONY CHRISTIANS, 4:23-CV-04137-CCT

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING ARAMARK vs. CORRECTIONAL SERVICES LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Contract Food Service Provider at SDSP-Jameson, in its individual and official capacity,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, Mark Anthony Christians, an inmate at the Mike Durfee State Prison (MDSP), filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docket 1. He filed an amended complaint, Docket 15, and the Court screened his amended complaint, dismissing it in part, Docket 24. Aramark Correctional Services, LLC1 is only remaining defendant. Aramark moves for an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B)(iii)-(iv) compelling Christians to sign and return four Authorization for Release of Health Information forms. Docket 68. Christians has not responded to Aramark’s motion to compel. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) requires that a motion to compel “include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or

1 The correct name of the defendant is Aramark Food Services, LLC (“Aramark”). Docket 68. attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make . . . discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). See also D.S.D. Civ. LR 37.1 (“A party filing a motion concerning a discovery dispute must file a

separate certification describing the good faith efforts of the parties to resolve the dispute.”). Aramark’s motion to compel, Docket 68, and supporting memorandum, Docket 69, do not contain the certification required by Rule 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 37.1. Aramark’s motion to compel, Docket 68, is denied. See Robinson v. Potter, 453 F.3d 990, 995 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to compel when the moving party does not make a good faith effort to resolve the issue without court intervention). Thus, it is

ORDERED that Aramark’s motion to compel, Docket 68, is denied. Dated October 20, 2025. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Camela C. Theeler CAMELA C. THEELER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARK ANTHONY CHRISTIANS, 4:23-CV-04137-CCT

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING ARAMARK vs. CORRECTIONAL SERVICES LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Contract Food Service Provider at SDSP-Jameson, in its individual and official capacity,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, Mark Anthony Christians, an inmate at the Mike Durfee State Prison (MDSP), filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docket 1. He filed an amended complaint, Docket 15, and the Court screened his amended complaint, dismissing it in part, Docket 24. Aramark Correctional Services, LLC1 is only remaining defendant. Aramark moves for an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B)(iii)-(iv) compelling Christians to sign and return four Authorization for Release of Health Information forms. Docket 68. Christians has not responded to Aramark’s motion to compel. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) requires that a motion to compel “include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or

1 The correct name of the defendant is Aramark Food Services, LLC (“Aramark”). Docket 68. attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make . . . discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). See also D.S.D. Civ. LR 37.1 (“A party filing a motion concerning a discovery dispute must file a

separate certification describing the good faith efforts of the parties to resolve the dispute.”). Aramark’s motion to compel, Docket 68, and supporting memorandum, Docket 69, do not contain the certification required by Rule 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 37.1. Aramark’s motion to compel, Docket 68, is denied. See Robinson v. Potter, 453 F.3d 990, 995 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to compel when the moving party does not make a good faith effort to resolve the issue without court intervention). Thus, it is

ORDERED that Aramark’s motion to compel, Docket 68, is denied. Dated October 20, 2025. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Camela C. Theeler CAMELA C. THEELER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mark Anthony Christians v. Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, Contract Food Service Provider at SDSP-Jameson, in its individual and official capacity, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-anthony-christians-v-aramark-correctional-services-llc-contract-sdd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack