Mays v. Sherburne County Jail

Background

Otis Mays, proceeding without a lawyer, originally asserted nine claims against 27 defendants. The claims involved different alleged events at the Sherburne County Jail, including eyeglasses, alleged labeling as a “snitch,” cell conditions, retaliation, threats, risk of harm from another inmate, medical treatment, and disciplinary procedures. The court had previously questioned whether these claims were properly joined in one lawsuit.

After the defendants filed an answer on June 2, 2020, Mays filed a 73-page amended complaint on July 6, 2020. The amended pleading kept the original claims and added more allegations and defendants, for a total of 48 named or partially named defendants. The added matters included alleged retaliation, discrimination, inadequate medical treatment, filthy cell conditions, unsanitary practices, and interference with interactions with a “jail house lawyer.”

Amended complaint and joinder

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 allows a plaintiff to amend once automatically within specified 21-day periods. The court held that Mays filed his amended complaint outside those periods and had not obtained the defendants’ consent or asked the court for permission to amend. Accordingly, the amended complaint was not the operative pleading and had no legal effect in the case.

The court also stated that it would deny leave to amend even if Mays had requested it. Under Rule 20, multiple defendants may be joined when the claims arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and share a common question of law or fact. The court found that Mays’s proposed claims had no logical relationship beyond the allegation that the defendants worked for the same county jail. The court therefore denied any request to amend based on the attempted joinder of unrelated claims. The original complaint remained the operative pleading.

The court declined to sever the original claims at that time. Instead, it ordered supplemental briefing on whether those claims could reasonably remain in one lawsuit or should be separated into different suits. The defendants were ordered to file a brief within 14 days, and Mays was given 14 days after receiving that brief to respond if the defendants requested severance.

Access to the law library and writing materials

Mays asked the court to require Federal Bureau of Prisons officials at FCI-Gilmer to provide law-library access and writing materials. The court explained that neither the Bureau of Prisons nor FCI-Gilmer officials were parties to the case and that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. It therefore declined to recommend an injunction requiring those officials to take specific actions in this case.

Deposition request

Mays requested permission to depose three or four incarcerated witnesses. The court denied the request at this time without prejudice, meaning the request could be renewed. The court stated that discovery could proceed after entry of the scheduling order, but an in-person deposition would require a specific request, a showing that it was necessary, and court approval.

The court also explained that permission to proceed without paying filing fees did not require the court to pay a self-represented plaintiff’s discovery costs. For subpoenas directed to nonparties, the requesting party must address relevance and avoid imposing undue burden or expense. The court noted that written-question depositions may be available under Rule 31, but a prisoner must first obtain permission to use that procedure.

Other requests

The court did not strike Mays’s first set of discovery requests from the record, even though discovery requests generally are not filed with the court unless they are used in a proceeding or the court orders filing. Because Mays had not identified which defendants should respond, the court ordered him to send defense counsel a letter within 14 days identifying those defendants.

The court denied Mays’s requests for subpoenas seeking information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and from a company involved in video visits. The court found that Mays had not shown that the requested information was relevant to the original claims or that the discovery was proportional to the needs of the case. The court said a subpoena for medical records from Sherburne County Jail medical staff was unnecessary because Mays had asserted official-capacity claims against county officials and defense counsel had indicated that it would provide the medical records after receiving Mays’s authorization.

David Neadeau, who was confined at Sherburne County Jail, filed a motion to join as a plaintiff. The court denied the motion because adding unspecified claims by another person would make case management more difficult while the court was already considering whether Mays’s claims were improperly joined. The court stated that Neadeau could file a separate lawsuit on his own behalf.