Block v. United States Government
- John Tunheim
- 0:23-cv-00127
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Waylen Block v. J. Fikes, Judge Docherty granted more time to amend the complaint and denied his request for a medical expert without prejudice.
Waylen Block, whose deadline to file an amended complaint was extended to February 19, 2025; his request for a medical expert was denied as moot and without prejudice.
What happened
Waylen Block v. J. Fikes, et al. concerns claims about conditions and medical care at a federal prison during the COVID-19 pandemic. Earlier, the court dismissed Block’s constitutional claims with prejudice and his Federal Tort Claims Act claim without prejudice.
Block asked the court to clarify when he could file an amended complaint and asked for a medical expert witness. The court treated the first request as a request for more time because delays in communicating with a lawyer assisting him had made preparing the amendment difficult.
Judge Docherty granted the extension and required Block to file his amended complaint by February 19, 2025. The judge denied the request for a medical expert as moot and without prejudice because no claims were active at that time, allowing Block to refile the request if his claims were not resolved.
The detailed version
- Block v. United States Government · No. 0:23-cv-00127
- John Tunheim
- Feb. 10, 2025
Background
Waylen Block brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute for conduct under state law; a federal constitutional damages claim recognized under Bivens; and the Federal Tort Claims Act. He alleged that conditions and medical care at the Federal Corrections Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota, during the COVID-19 pandemic violated his constitutional rights and caused injuries, including COVID-19, kidney disease, and other serious medical conditions.
On September 30, 2024, Judge John R. Tunheim dismissed Block’s § 1983 and Bivens claims with prejudice and dismissed his Federal Tort Claims Act claim without prejudice. The opinion states that no claims were active when the present order was issued, while Block was consulting with a lawyer through the Federal Bar Association’s Pro Se Project about settling his case.
Motions
Block filed a motion asking the court to clarify the deadline for filing an amended complaint addressing deficiencies in his Federal Tort Claims Act claim. The court recharacterized that filing as a motion for an extension of time. Block explained that he was communicating with a Minnesota-based Pro Se Project attorney, but that mail delays related to his incarceration at Devens Federal Medical Center in Massachusetts had slowed their work. He requested until February 19, 2025, to file the amended complaint.
Block also moved for appointment of an expert medical witness.
Court’s ruling
Judge John F. Docherty granted the motion for an extension of time. The court concluded that the difficulties of sending and receiving mail while incarcerated supported allowing Block additional time. The amended complaint was required to be filed by February 19, 2025.
The court denied Block’s motion to appoint an expert medical witness as moot and without prejudice. Because no claims were active at that time, the court found that deciding the expert-motion request would not be helpful. The court stated that Block could refile the motion if he could not resolve his claims, with or without assistance from a Pro Se Project attorney, and that it would then address the substance of the request.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.