Kaid v. Tatum

Background

Saeed Kaid brought this action without a lawyer while incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Center in Fairton, New Jersey. He alleged that defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect him and by showing deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.

Kaid alleged that on January 9, 2017, he was transported to the Metropolitan Correctional Center and placed in the general population instead of administrative detention, where a cooperating witness in his case was housed. After Kaid received a warning that the cooperating witness had a knife, he asked to be separated. The next morning, the cooperating witness allegedly stabbed him, pushed him down stairs, kicked his head, and stomped on his injured ankle.

Kaid further alleged that medical staff diagnosed fractures in his left foot and ankle but initially provided only an ankle brace and medication previously prescribed for another injury. He said he later requested stronger pain medication and crutches but did not receive them. He was taken to a local hospital on February 3, 2017, where he received a hard cast, crutches, and a recommendation for Tramadol, but he alleged that he never received that medication. He also described allegedly threatening or intimidating statements by prison personnel.

Screening and amendment

The court treated the claims as arising under Bivens, a type of lawsuit seeking damages from federal officials for alleged constitutional violations. The court explained that prisoner complaints filed without prepaying fees must be screened and dismissed if they are legally insufficient, frivolous, malicious, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction.

The court had previously raised a possible statute-of-limitations problem. The events in the original complaint occurred between January 9 and February 3, 2017, and the court stated that a timely Bivens claim generally had to be filed by February 3, 2020. Although Kaid signed his complaint on February 6, 2020, the record did not show when he gave it to prison officials for mailing. The complaint was postmarked May 1, 2020, and received by the court on May 11, 2020.

The court had given Kaid an opportunity to explain whether the complaint was timely. His declaration did not address timeliness. Instead, it repeated the original allegations, added allegations concerning constitutional violations occurring from February 10, 2017, through March 24, 2018, and referred to additional people. The court also noted that the complaint’s caption listed E. L. Tatum, Jr., Warden, and “Named & Unknown Defendants, Twenty-Eight Total Defendants,” while the body identified only four defendants and referred to other people. As a result, it remained unclear whom Kaid intended to sue.

Rulings

The court granted Kaid leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to identify each defendant in both the caption and the factual allegations, explain what each defendant allegedly did, and include the facts and claims Kaid wanted the court to consider. It had to cover the alleged events from January 9, 2017, through March 24, 2018. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and declaration.

The court allowed unidentified defendants to be named as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe,” but explained that using those labels would not stop the statute of limitations from running. Kaid was required to identify those defendants and amend the complaint to include their identities before the limitations period expired. The court also stated that adding a new claim or party after that period would require satisfying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c).

Judge Louis L. Stanton ordered Kaid to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within sixty days. No summons would issue at that time. The order warned that failure to comply, without a showing of good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court denied Kaid’s request for appointment of counsel without prejudice to renewal later because it was too early to assess the merits of the case. The court did not decide the merits of Kaid’s constitutional claims.