Miles v. Kentucky Department of Corrections et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Miles 1 motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED; 2. Miles' 2 Motion for Court to Serve Summons/Notice on All Parties is DENIED; 3. Miles' 3 motion to appoint counsel to represent him inthese proce edings is DENIED; 4. Miles' 18 motion to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED; 5. Clerk shall FILE Miles' tendered amended complaint as his Second Amended Complaint; 6. Warden's 13 Motion to dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDI CE; 7. Miles' 19 Motion for leave to file sealed documents is GRANTED; 8. Miles' 23 Motion for summary judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 9. Warden's 24 Motion for Court to conduct screening of Miles' Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED; 10. This matter stands submitted for screening of Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 10/28/2015.(STC)cc: COR,Plt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
DARRELL L. MILES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
V.
DON BOTTOM, Warden, et al.,
Defendants.
****

****

Civil No. 5:15-CV-126-JMH

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

****

****

This case is before the Court to address several matters.
On May 7, 2015, inmate Darrell Miles filed a motion seeking
a

preliminary

injunction

to

compel

prison

officials

at

the

Northpoint Training Center (“NTC”) to house him in a two-man cell
to protect him from other prisoners while he slept.

[R. 1]

Miles

also filed a motion requesting the Court to serve each of the
defendants

with

process

on

his

behalf

[R.

2],

and

a

motion

requesting the appointment of counsel [R. 3].
One week later, the Court entered an Order construing Miles’s
motion for a preliminary injunction as a civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

[R. 5, p. 2]

The Court granted

Miles’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis by separate Order
[R. 6], screened Miles’s complaint, and ordered that NTC Warden
Don Bottom (but not the other defendants) be served with process
to address his claims.

[R. 5, pp. 3-5]

Miles filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015.

[R. 10]

Shortly thereafter, Miles was transferred to the Little Sandy
Correctional Complex (“LSCC”) [R. 12] where he still resides
[R. 26]

On June 11, 2015, Warden Bottom filed a motion to dismiss

the complaint [R. 13], although the motion was directed towards
the allegations of Miles’s original [R. 1] rather than amended
[R. 10] complaint.
The Court ordered Miles to file a response to the warden’s
dispositive motion.

[R. 17]

Miles responded on July 14, 2015,

but did so in a document which weaved in his responses consisting
of legal arguments with new factual allegations as part of a motion
to file a second amended complaint.

[R. 18]

At the same time,

Miles filed a motion to seal certain medical records offered as
part of his response to the motion to dismiss.

[R. 19]

Miles has recently filed a motion for summary judgment against
all defendants.

[R. 23]

In response, Warden Bottom notes that

none of the other defendants has been served with process, and
asks the Court to screen Miles’s Second Amended Complaint before
requiring a response.

[R. 24]

Developments in this case dictate the outcome of several
motions pending before the Court.
transfer

from

NTC

to

LSCC

First, Miles’s May 28, 2015,

renders

his

original

motion

for

injunctive relief against the NTC defendants [R. 1] moot, and it
2 

must therefore be denied.
(6th Cir. 2010).

Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F. 3d 282, 289

Second, Miles requested that the Court serve his

motion for injunctive relief upon all parties [R. 2]; however, the
Court’s decision to serve only Warden Bottom [R. 5] implicitly
rejected that request to serve the other defendants.
will

therefore

formally

deny

that

motion,

The Court

subject

to

the

considerations discussed more fully below.
Miles also moved for the appointment of counsel, noting that
he lacks the funds to secure private counsel and that a seasoned
litigator would assist in the prosecution of his claims.

[R. 3]

However, the Court will appoint counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(1) to represent a pro se party in civil litigation only
in exceptional circumstances.

Lanier v. Bryant, 332 F.3d 999,

1006 (6th Cir. 2003). A court reviewing such a motion may consider
the complexity of the case, Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 60506 (6th Cir. 1993), the ability of the plaintiff to represent
himself competently, Lanier, 332 F.3d at 1006, and the movant’s
likelihood of success on the merits of the claim, Cleary v.
Mukaskey, 307 F. App’x 963, 965 (6th Cir. 2009).

Here, Miles has

filed numerous motions, many appropriately briefed with citations
to relevant authority, indicating Miles’s ability to represent
himself.
determines

Considering the factors set forth above, the Court
that

this

case

does
3 

not

present

the

kind

of

extraordinary circumstances which would warrant the appointment of
counsel for the plaintiff, and Miles’s motion will be denied.
Miles filed his amended complaint on May 22, 2015, [R. 10]
something he was permitted to do without leave of court pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1).

Miles moved to file

a second amendment to his complaint on July 14, 2015.

[R. 18]

While the second amendment requires leave of the Court, such should
be freely given.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

Because this request

was made early in these proceedings, within two months of the
original filing date and before service had been effected or
discovery conducted, there has been no undue delay in seeking the
amendment or prejudice to the defendants.

Wade v. Knoxville

Utilities Bd., 259 F.3d 452, 458-59 (6th Cir. 2001).

The Court

concludes that the second amendment should be permitted, the Second
Amended Complaint will be filed into the record.
Having granted Miles leave to amend his complaint, the Court
will deny Warden Bottom’s motion to dismiss [R. 13], which is
predicated upon the facts and claims asserted in the original
complaint, without prejudice.

The Court will also grant Miles’s

motion to submit certain medical records under seal [R. 19] to
protect the confidentiality of the information contained therein.
Finally, Miles has moved for summary judgment on the claims
asserted in his complaint.

[R. 23]
4 

However, the Court lacks

personal jurisdiction over any of the defendants save Warden Bottom
because they have yet to be served with process.

Robertson v.

Railroad Labor Bd., 268 U.S. 619, 622 (1925) (a federal court
cannot acquire personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the
defendant is properly served with process).

Absent personal

jurisdiction, the Court cannot give the defendants the notice and
an opportunity to be heard that due process requires, let alone
grant summary judgment against them.

The Court further agrees

with Warden Bottom [R. 24] that, based on the more expansive record
before the Court at this juncture, the better course is to conduct
a screening of Miles’s amended complaint before determining how to
proceed.

The Court will therefore deny Miles’s motion for summary

judgment without prejudice, and grant Warden Bottom’s request to
screen the Second Amended Complaint.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Miles’s motion for a preliminary injunction [R. 1] is

DENIED.
2.

Miles’s “Motion for Court to Serve Summons/Notice on All

Parties” [R. 2] is DENIED.
3.

Miles’s motion to appoint counsel to represent him in

these proceedings [R. 3] is DENIED.
4.

Miles’s

motion

to

file

[R. 18] is GRANTED.
5 

a

second

amended

complaint

5.

The Clerk of the Court shall FILE Miles’s tendered

amended complaint [R. 18-2] into the record as his Second Amended
Complaint.
6.

Defendant Warden Don Bottom’s Motion to Dismiss [R. 13]

is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
7.

Miles’s “Motion for Leave to File Sealed Documents”

[R. 19] is GRANTED.
8.

Miles’s Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 23] is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
9.

Warden

Bottom’s

motion

for

the

Court

to

conduct

a

screening of Miles’s Second Amended Complaint [R. 24] is GRANTED.
10.

This matter stands submitted for screening of the Second

Amended Complaint.
This 28th day of October, 2015.

6