Brown v. Saline County Jail et al
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion 83 for leave to file a third amended complaint is denied. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 5/18/2011.Mailed to pro se party Kendall Trent Brown by regular mail.) (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
KENDALL TRENT BROWN,
SALINE COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
handling of his mail while he was confined in the Saline County
Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a
includes defendants’ objection to plaintiff’s request, the court
denies plaintiff’s motion.
In the complaint as first amended, plaintiff named Saline
Officer Nalls as defendants.1
The court dismissed the amended
complaint as stating no claim for relief against either defendant.
The Saline County Jail, named as a defendant in the original
complaint, was not named as a defendant in plaintiff’s first
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the
matter, finding further consideration was required on plaintiff’s
plaintiff’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech by failing
to process plaintiff’s outgoing mail, by monitoring plaintiff’s
mail as a disciplinary action, by not allowing plaintiff to take
his mail with him when he was sent to Larned State Hospital for
Plaintiff thereafter amended his complaint a second time to
name four additional defendants as participating in the alleged
amended complaint were Captain Augustine, Program Director Tina
directed the clerk’s office to issue summons for all defendants,
with service by the United States Marshal Service.
Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his
complaint a third time.
Having reviewed the record, the court
denies this request.
Because defendants object to plaintiff’s proposed amendment
of the complaint, plaintiff must obtain leave of the court to
amend the complaint a third time.
court is to freely grant leave to amend when justice so requires.
The allegations in plaintiff’s original complaint, filed in
March 2007 within the two year statute of limitations for seeking
Detention Center in and around November 2006.
amended complaint, filed in April 2010, is considered timely filed
essentially center on the same misconduct regarding the handling
of his mail, and thus arguably relate back to the filing date of
plaintiff’s original complaint.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(1)(B) (“An
amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original
pleading when ... the amendment asserts a claim or defense that
arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set out - or
attempted to be set out - in the original pleading[.]”).
In his proposed third amended complaint, plaintiff reasserts
claims concerning the mishandling of his mail,3 but expands his
allegations to assert new and additional claims of constitutional
violations in the conditions of his confinement while at the
See Baker v. Board of Regents of State of Kan., 991 F.2d 628,
630-31 (10th Cir.1993)(two-year statute of limitations in K.S.A. 60513 applies to civil rights actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
To the extent plaintiff continues to allege that defendants’
handling of his mail impermissibly interfered with his right of
access to the courts, these allegations are not properly before the
court as the Tenth Circuit upheld this court’s dismissal of such
Saline County facility.4
Because these new claims do not assert a
plaintiff’s mail, and are not centered on the same core operative
facts as set forth in the original complaint, they do not relate
back to the filing date of that complaint.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s new allegations of constitutional
deprivation occurring during his confinement in the Saline County
Jail are not raised within the two year limitation period for
seeking relief on such claims.
Amendment of the complaint to now
raise these time barred claims thus would be futile, and would not
serve the interests of justice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to
file a third amended complaint (Doc. 83) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This 18th day of May 2011 at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge
Plaintiff’s proposed third amended complaint seeks to add new
claims under the Sixth and Eighth Amendments, including allegations
of retaliation and of physical and verbal threats against plaintiff,
allowing or encouraging other prisoners to abuse and harass
plaintiff, malicious prosecution of plaintiff, and a conspiracy to
violate plaintiff’s rights.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?