Ward v. Koenig

Background

Trevillion Ward, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Craig Koenig, identified as the warden of the Correctional Training Facility. Ward alleges that Koenig authorized a July 20, 2020, raid targeting African American inmates and failed to require correctional officers to use personal protective equipment, intending to spread COVID-19 among African American inmates. Ward asserts Eighth Amendment claims involving inmate safety and serious medical needs, along with state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision.

The order resolves three motions: Koenig’s request for additional time to respond to discovery, Koenig’s request to modify the scheduling order, and Ward’s requests to add a claim and obtain appointed counsel.

Discovery Extension

The court found good cause and granted nunc pro tunc—that is, retroactively—Koenig’s request for a two-week extension to respond to Ward’s request for production served on December 11, 2023.

Scheduling Order

The court denied as moot Koenig’s request to vacate and reset the deadline for dispositive motions. The court explained that Koenig had already complied with the existing scheduling order by filing a summary judgment motion. That motion could dispose of the action on exhaustion grounds. The order does not decide that summary judgment motion.

Request to Add a Retaliation Claim

Ward sought to add a claim alleging that, in retaliation for grievances about the July 2020 raid, Koenig’s employees placed a confidential memorandum in Ward’s file on February 10, 2021. The memorandum allegedly falsely identified Ward as an associate or member of the STG-1 Black Guerilla Family and was intended to prevent him from receiving parole.

The court denied the request to add the claim. It gave several reasons:

- Ward could not amend the complaint piecemeal by adding claims through separate pleadings. Any proposed amended complaint would need to include all defendants and claims Ward wished to pursue. - Because Koenig had already filed an answer, Ward needed Koenig’s consent or the court’s permission to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). He had obtained neither. - Amendment would be futile because the proposed allegations did not adequately state a retaliation claim or a claim against Koenig. The court said the allegations did not reasonably show that Koenig was involved in creating or placing the memorandum, knew about the grievances, or knew about the memorandum. The court also explained that § 1983 does not impose liability on a supervisor merely because the supervisor employs or supervises the person who allegedly violated a plaintiff’s rights. - The proposed claim did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20’s requirements for joining claims and defendants because it arose from a separate occurrence—the alleged February 2021 memorandum—rather than the July 2020 raid at issue in the operative complaint.

The denial was without prejudice to Ward raising the retaliation claim in a separate action. The clerk was directed to send Ward two copies of the court’s civil-rights complaint form.

Appointment of Counsel

The court denied Ward’s renewed request for appointed counsel. Ward cited difficulty accessing the law library at Valley State Prison because of the distance, an uphill route, mobility impairment, limited lung capacity, and poor wireless signal. The court found that Ward’s circumstances had not changed significantly from those considered when it previously denied his request for counsel.

The denial was without prejudice to the court appointing counsel on its own initiative if the interests of justice later require it.

Disposition

The court granted Koenig’s request for a two-week discovery extension, denied as moot Koenig’s request to modify the scheduling order, denied Ward’s request to add a claim without prejudice to raising it separately, and denied Ward’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice to a possible later court appointment. The order terminates the three motions addressed in the order.