A prison inmate wins partial access to medical and staffing records in his lawsuit.
Kelly v. Mace, et al.
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
A prison inmate wins partial access to medical and staffing records in his lawsuit.
Why it matters
In Kelly v. Mace, et al., U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Mark Coulson of the District of Maryland ruled on a discovery dispute in a civil rights lawsuit brought by Keith Kelly, an inmate at Western Correctional Institution. Kelly alleged that prison medical contractors were deliberately indifferent to his deep vein thrombosis and retaliated against him for filing grievances. The court granted in part and denied in part Kelly's request to compel broader discovery responses from the defendants.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Keith Kelly and the medical contractor defendants in his lawsuit, including corporate entities that provide healthcare in Maryland correctional facilities. More broadly, it is relevant to incarcerated people in Maryland who pursue civil rights claims against prison medical providers, and to those contractors regarding their discovery obligations in such cases.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Oct 7, 2026
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible appeal to the circuit court.
View possible path
- Decision issued Oct 7, 2026
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible appeal to the circuit court
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
District court
Decision issued
Oct 7, 2026
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Keith Kelly, an inmate at Western Correctional Institution in Cumberland, Maryland, sued multiple medical providers and corporate defendants alleging they failed to give him adequate care for his deep vein thrombosis. He claimed providers ignored sick calls, cancelled appointments, refused him access to doctors, and withheld prescribed medication. He also alleged retaliation for filing grievances, and that the corporate defendants maintained a pattern and practice of understaffing the prison medical unit. The defendants in the case include individual medical staff as well as corporate entities: Centurion of Maryland, Centurion Health, and Centurion Group, Inc., which Kelly alleged took over medical contracting at the facility in the summer of 2024. Prior to that, a company called YesCare (formerly Corizon Health) held the medical services contract. Some of the individual defendants were employed by YesCare and sought a stay of proceedings due to YesCare's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in Florida. The court was asked to resolve a dispute over whether the defendants had adequately responded to Kelly's discovery requests, which sought documents and information relevant to his claims about denial of care, staffing practices, and retaliation. After reviewing the parties' written submissions, the court found that a hearing was unnecessary and resolved the matter based on the briefs alone. The court granted Kelly's requested relief in part and denied it in part, meaning some of his discovery requests were upheld and the defendants must respond more fully, while others were rejected. The opinion does not yet resolve the underlying merits of Kelly's constitutional or state law claims. Kelly's lawsuit includes claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for denial of medical care, a Monell claim alleging an unconstitutional policy or custom of understaffing, and a retaliation claim, as well as parallel claims under the Maryland Declaration of Rights. This ruling is a procedural step in ongoing litigation. It does not decide whether Kelly's rights were actually violated, but it determines what information he is entitled to gather as the case moves forward.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND CHAMBERS OF 101 WEST LOMBARD STREET J. Mark Coulson BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE P: (410) 962-4953 | F: (410) 962-2985 mdd_jmcchambers@mdd.uscourts.gov October 7, 2026 LETTER ORDER AND OPINION TO COUNSEL RE: Kelly v. Mace, et al. Civil No. 1:23-cv-02432-BAH Dear Counsel: Plaintiff, Keith Kelly (“Plaintiff”), an inmate at Western Correctional Institution (“WCI”) in Cumberland, Maryland, brought this case alleging that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs while he was incarcerated and retaliated against him for filing grievances. (ECF No. 62).1 Currently before the Court is a discovery dispute concerning Defendants’ responses and objections to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (ECF Nos. 98, 99, 102). The Court has carefully considered the parties’ letters summarizing their respective positions. The issues have been fully briefed (ECF Nos. 98, 99, 102), and no hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2025). For the reasons set forth below, the Court shall GRANT in part and DENY in part Plaintiff’s requested relief. I. Background The present litigation arises from Plaintiff’s allegations that he did not receive adequate medical care while incarcerated at WCI where he has been incarcerated since 2021. (ECF No. 62 at 3).2 Plaintiff claims that Defendants’ unlawful actions “under the color of state law . . . resulted in the violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Marland, and Maryland Common law.” (ECF No. 62 at 2). Plaintiff brings this suit against the following Defendants: Centurion of Maryland, LLC (“Centurion of Maryland”), Centurion, LLC (“Centurion Health”), Centurion Group, Inc., Burnice Mace (“Defendant Mace”), Jannette Clark (“Defendant Clark”), Amy Kelly (“Defendant Kelly”), Karen Coleman (“Defendant Coleman”), Asreashegn Getachew, M.D. (“Defendant Asreashegn”), Peter LoPresti, D.O. (“Defendant LoPresti”), and Richard Schlottman, M.D. (“Defendant Schlottman”) (collectively the “Defendants”). Id. at 3-5.3 1 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s first Complaint was filed on September 5, 2023 (ECF No.1), but the operative pleading is Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint filed on December 19, 2026. (ECF No. 62). 2 When the Court cites to a specific page number or range of page numbers, the Court is referring to the page numbers provided in the electronic filing stamps located at the top of every electronically filed document. If there are none, the Court is referring to the page number of the PDF. 3 Defendants Clark, Mace, Kelly, and Coleman all provided medical services at WCI. (ECF No. 63 at 4-5). Defendant Asreashegn was the “Regional Medical Director for the Western Region for Corizon” (ECF No. 63 at 5). Defendant Plaintiff avers that while incarcerated at WCI, he did not receive adequate medical care for his deep vein thrombosis. Id. at 6. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendants “routinely failed to provide adequate medical care, failed to adhere to [his] physicians’ prescribed treatment plans, failed to properly monitor [his] condition, and failed to provide [his] his medication.” Id. He claims that in violation of DPSCS policy, “individual medical providers repeatedly failed to respond to [his] sick calls, refused to have him be seen by a medical doctor, cancelled his medical appointments, and denied him his prescribed medication.” Id. at 21. Importantly, at the time Plaintiff was first incarcerated at WCI, Corizon Health, Inc., commonly referred to as YesCare (“YesCare”) contracted with DPSCS to provide medical services in Maryland’s correctional facilities. (ECF No. 96 at 6). Plaintiff alleges that “in the summer of 2024, [Centurion of Maryland] entered into a contract with the State of Maryland to provide medical and mental health care services at correctional facilities in the State of Maryland, including WCI.” (ECF No. 62 at 3). He claims that Centurion Health is the parent company of Centurion of Maryland “and other state-level subsidiaries that contract to provide medical services in correctional facilities.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff not only alleges that the Defendants denied him access to adequate medical care, but he also claims that the denial of adequate medical care was part of a pattern and practice at WCI. Id. at 29. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Centurion of Maryland, Centurion Health, and Centurion Group, Inc. (collectively the “Centurion Defendants”) engaged in “a pattern and practice of knowingly failing to comply with DPSCS’s standards through understaffing, which has resulted in inadequate medical care and suffering to Mr. Kelly and others.” Id. at 40. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint asserts five counts against Defendants. Relevant to the present discovery dispute, Plaintiff brings the following claims: Count I (42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim) against Defendants Clark, Coleman, Getachew, Kelley, LoPresti, Mace, and Schlottman alleging an unconstitutional denial and delay of necessary medical care;4 Count III (Monell claim) against Defendants Centurion of Maryland, Centurion Health, and Centurion Group, Inc., alleging an unconstitutional policy or custom of understaffing WCI’s Medical Unit;5 and Count V (42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim) against Defendant Clark alleging retaliation in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected speech. Id. at 43-50. On August 20, 2026, Defendants Clark, Coleman, Getachew, Kelley, and Mace (collectively the “YesCare Defendants”) filed a Motion to Stay due to YesCare’s “petition for LoPresti was “Centurion Health’s Statewide Medical Director for the State of Maryland.” Id. Defendant Schlottman was “Centurion Health’s Regional Medical Director in Maryland.” Id. 4 Plaintiff also brings Count II against the same group of Defendants for allegedly violating Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. (ECF No. 63 at 44). For the purposes of ruling on the present discovery dispute, the Court will consider Counts I and II together in determining Defendants’ discovery obligations. See Doe v. Anne Arundel Cnty., No. 1:23-CV-03451-JRR, 2025 WL 675059, at *6 (D. Md. Mar. 3, 2025). 5 Plaintiff also brings Count IV against the same group of Defendants for allegedly violating Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. (ECF No. 26 at 47). For the purposes of ruling on the present discovery dispute, the Court need not separately consider Counts I and II in determining Defendants’ discovery obligations. See Talley v. Anne Arundel Cty. Md., No. CV RDB-21-347, 2021 WL 4244759, at *13 (D. Md. Sept. 17, 2021) (“Longtin claims are essentially Maryland’s version of Monell Claims.”); Grim v. Baltimore Police Dep’t, No. ELH-18-3864, 2019 WL 5865561, at *8 (D. Md. Nov. 8, 2019). relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court or the Middle District of Florida in Case No. 2:26-bk-01087.” (ECF No. 94 at 2). The YesCare Defendants were employed by YesCare throug
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.