Kaid v. Tatum
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-03643
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 15
In Kaid v. Tatum, Judge Carter ordered service and identification of two unnamed defendants in Saeed Kaid’s federal prison-rights case.
Saeed Kaid, the named federal defendants, the two unidentified John Doe defendants, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the United States Attorney’s Office.
What happened
In Kaid v. Tatum, Saeed Kaid, who was representing himself and was incarcerated, alleged that officials at the Metropolitan Correctional Center failed to protect him and were deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs. He brought the case under a legal theory allowing certain claims against federal officials.
The court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the named defendants and extended the service deadline until 90 days after summonses are issued. It also ordered the United States Attorney’s Office to identify two defendants listed as John Doe and required Kaid to file a second amended complaint naming them. The order did not decide whether Kaid’s claims were legally valid.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. ordered the Clerk of Court to provide the necessary papers for service and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from the order. The court also required Kaid to keep the court informed of address changes.
The detailed version
- Kaid v. Tatum · No. 1:20-cv-03643
- Andrew Carter
- June 14, 2021
Background
Saeed Kaid, who was incarcerated at the time and proceeded without a lawyer, brought this action under Bivens, a legal doctrine that can provide a damages remedy for certain constitutional violations by federal officials. He alleged that, while detained at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, the defendants failed to protect him and showed deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The opinion states that the court had previously allowed Kaid to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Screening and service
Because Kaid was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court reviewed the complaint under federal prisoner-screening statutes. The order discusses the requirement that a complaint state a plausible claim and that the court dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, legally insufficient, or seek money from an immune defendant. The order then addressed service rather than deciding the merits of the alleged constitutional violations.
The court stated that Kaid could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the federal defendants. It extended the service deadline until 90 days after summonses are issued. The Clerk of Court was instructed to prepare the required service forms, issue summonses, and provide the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service for the named defendants, including E.L. Tatum, Jr.; Mr. McBain; Rosa Proto; E. Walkes; S. Espinet; F. Oliveres; Z. Gardner; S. Gregory; A. Bussanich; S. Mandeep; T. Thomas; K. Alraheeb; L. Anderson; S. Esguerra; K. Masters; T. Doctor; L. Shivers; and Mr. Banks.
Unnamed defendants
The complaint identified two additional defendants only as John Doe, SHU Lieutenant, and John Doe, SHU Officer. Applying a rule that allows a self-represented litigant to receive help identifying a defendant, the court found that the complaint provided enough information for the Metropolitan Correctional Center to identify them. The United States Attorney’s Office was ordered to provide their identities, badge numbers, and service addresses to Kaid and the court within 60 days.
After receiving that information, Kaid must file a second amended complaint naming the two John Doe defendants within 30 days. The second amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaints. The court stated that it will screen the second amended complaint and may then direct service on the newly named defendants.
Disposition
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. ordered service on the named defendants, ordered the identification of the two John Doe defendants, directed the Clerk to mail the order and related materials, and required Kaid to notify the court of address changes. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not resolve the merits of Kaid’s failure-to-protect or medical-needs allegations.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.