Rhodes v. Ford

Background

Kavin Maurice Rhodes, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The operative amended complaint was filed on September 28, 2020, and the court ordered service on October 30, 2020. Rhodes sought to add several defendants and claims concerning events in December 2020 and January 2021.

Motion to Supplement

The court explained that, even assuming the new claims had been fully exhausted through the prison’s administrative grievance process, a prisoner must have completed that process before filing an amended complaint when the amendment adds claims. The December 2020 and January 2021 allegations could not have been exhausted until after the amended complaint was filed, so they could not be brought in this action.

The court also stated that unrelated claims against different defendants belong in separate lawsuits. Although both the existing and proposed claims involved alleged retaliation, Rhodes had not shown that the new claims were sufficiently connected to the current claims. The court denied the motion to supplement the pleadings, Docket No. 25, and stated that Rhodes could raise the new claims in a separate action. The clerk was directed to send him a blank civil-rights complaint form and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.

Motion to Compel

The court denied Rhodes’s motion to compel, Docket No. 24, because no defendants had appeared in the case, making the motion premature. The court stated that court staff had contacted the United States Marshal about serving the defendants and would continue monitoring service.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied both motions: the motion to supplement the pleadings and the motion to compel. The order did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.