Select Legal Topics by Schatkin Andrew J.;

Author:Schatkin, Andrew J.;
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780761866374
Publisher: UPA

Reprinted with permission from 73, QUEENS BAR BULLETIN, November 2010 at 3–4.

Chapter 13 Named or Unnamed

A Neat Question

The Civil Rights Statute 42 U.S.C. Sec. § 1983 is one of the most frequently found denizens of the Federal Court System, or rather the United States District Courts and Courts of Appeal. The Act and statute was enacted after the Civil War and during Reconstruction to control lawless and brutal Ku Klux Klan activity against recently freed slaves. Since that time, that statute has been extended to two or three significant areas. These areas include police brutality and beatings where excessive force is used in making an arrest. Further, it includes false arrest cases; and thirdly, it includes prisoner’s rights cases where beatings are inflicted and bodily harm caused to pre-trial detainees and inmates in correctional facilities, or where they are deprived by deliberate indifference of adequate and proper medical care. Often, an arrestee or inmate will not know the names or identities of the persons who have caused him great and grievous bodily harm and injury. The inmate or arrestee may file a complaint, not knowing the names of the police officers or corrections officers and refers to them as “John Doe” defendants.

The question arises, therefore, and it is a neat one: is using the term “John Doe” or unnamed defendant a permitted and permissible legal practice? There has been some case law resolving and interpreting this particular issue. This article proposes to review the case law and derive from it an analysis and examination of any rules concerning the use of “John Doe” or the use of an unnamed defendant in civil rights actions brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. § 1983.

One of the leading cases analyzing this issue is Wakefield v. Thompson.1 In Wakefield, plaintiff Timothy Wakefield appealed the District Court’s dismissal of his Sec. 1983 action against “John Doe,” a correctional officer at the San Quentin Prison. Mr. Wakefield alleged that the “John Doe” officer violated his 8th Amendment rights by refusing to provide him with prescription psychotropic medication upon his release from prison. Plaintiff Wakefield asserted that “John Doe” exhibited deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. (Wakefield suffered from an organic delusional disorder.)

According to Wakefield’s allegations, he met with a doctor shortly before he was released from San Quentin and the doctor wrote Wakefield a prescription for two weeks worth of Navane to be filled by prison officials and dispensed upon Wakefield’s release from prison. On the day of his release, Wakefield asked “John Doe,” the officer handling the release procedure, for his two-week supply of Navane and “John Doe” replied that “there wasn’t any medication available.” Despite Wakefield’s protestations concerning his need for the medicine, “Doe” refused even to call the prison medical staff to check on Wakefield’s prescription. When Wakefield was released from San Quentin Prison without the medicine to control his mental illness, he suffered a relapse that led to a violent outburst and his subsequent arrest.

The District Court dismissed Wakefield’s civil rights action,

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.