Ricketts v. Maggard
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:19-cv-00276
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Ricketts v. Maggard, Judge Bowbeer treated Ricketts’s filing as an amended complaint and ordered service, without deciding the underlying medical-care claims.
David E. Ricketts was affected because his filing became the operative amended complaint and he was made responsible for copying and service fees. The Clerk’s Office and U.S. Marshals Service were directed to handle service, and Defendants Maggard, Birkolz, and Feda were to receive service or waiver packets. Dr. Nassaralla’s status was left unresolved.
What happened
Ricketts v. Maggard involved David E. Ricketts, who was incarcerated and representing himself. He alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment under a civil-rights law.
The court treated Ricketts’s filing called a “Bivens Action Motion TORT CLAIM” as his amended complaint, replacing his original complaint. It directed the Clerk’s Office to send the amended complaint and service forms to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on Maggard, Birkolz, and Feda, and explained that Ricketts would be responsible for copying and service fees.
Judge Hildy Bowbeer did not decide the underlying medical-care claims or Dr. Nassaralla’s status in this order. The order addressed the amended pleading and service of process.
The detailed version
- Ricketts v. Maggard · No. 0:19-cv-00276
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Apr. 22, 2019
Background
David E. Ricketts, who was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The order states that he paid the filing fee and was not proceeding without paying it.
The court had previously asked Ricketts to clarify whether he was suing the defendants in both their official and individual capacities and whether he wanted the U.S. Marshals Service to serve them. Ricketts confirmed that he intended to sue in both capacities and was willing to pay the applicable service fees. The court had also issued a report and recommendation recommending dismissal of Dr. Nassaralla. Ricketts later filed an amended complaint and a motion to amend, and he submitted service forms.
Court’s Analysis
The court construed Ricketts’s “Bivens Action Motion TORT CLAIM” as an amended complaint because it contained factual allegations and requests for relief from both the original complaint and later submissions. Because service had not been completed, the court concluded that the amended complaint was filed within the period allowing one amendment without court permission. It therefore treated that filing as the operative pleading, replacing the original complaint.
The amended complaint named the defendants in both their official and individual capacities. Because the amended complaint was now operative, the court directed that the original complaint not be served. It also stated that Dr. Nassaralla’s status was not addressed in this order and that the district judge would review the pending report and recommendation in light of the amended allegations and Ricketts’s objections.
The court reproduced the service-fee schedule under 28 C.F.R. § 0.114(a), including fees for forwarding process, service by mail, personal service, copies, and certain property-related services.
Order
Judge Hildy Bowbeer ordered that:
- Ricketts’s “Bivens Action Motion TORT CLAIM” be treated as the amended complaint and operative pleading.
- The Clerk’s Office provide the amended complaint and Ricketts’s U.S. Marshals Service forms to the Marshals Service for service on Maggard, Birkolz, and Feda in their official capacities.
- The Clerk’s Office prepare waiver-of-service packets for those defendants in their individual capacities.
- Ricketts be responsible for copying and service fees consistent with 28 C.F.R. § 0.114(a).
The order did not decide whether Ricketts’s medical-care claims were legally sufficient or whether Dr. Nassaralla would remain a defendant.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.