Palmore v. The City of Dothan et al (INMATE2)

Filing 3

ORDER that on or before June 27, 2006 Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint, as set out in order, on a form for use in filing a 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint; said amended complaint shall supersede the original complaint. Amended Pleadings due by 6/27/2006. Signed by Judge Vanzetta P. McPherson on 6/14/2006. Mailed to plaintiff with a 1983 Complaint form.(cc, )

Palmore v. The City of Dothan et al (INMATE2)

Doc. 3

Case 1:06-cv-00503-MHT-VPM

Document 3

Filed 06/14/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA S O U T H E R N DIVISION _______________________________ F A R R IS PALMORE and the Inmates o f the Dothan City Jail P l a i n t if f s , * v. * D .T . MARSHAL, et al., * D e f e n d a n ts . _______________________________ 1:06-CV-503-MHT (WO) * *

ORDER T h is case is presently pending before the court on a complaint filed by Farris Palmore, a n inmate incarcerated in the Dothan City Jail. A thorough review of this complaint indicates th a t although Plaintiff lists nine defendants in this cause of action, the complaint consists m e r e l y of general conclusions of constitutional violations and fails to identify factual a lleg a tio n s material to specific counts lodged against the named defendants with respect to a n y violations of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. "This type of pleading completely disregards Rule 10(b)'s requirement that discrete c la im s should be plead in separate counts, see Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Tr., 77 F.3d 364-3666 7 (11 th Cir. 1996), and is the type of complaint that [has been] criticized time and again." M a g lu ta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11 th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the court deems it

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:06-cv-00503-MHT-VPM

Document 3

Filed 06/14/2006

Page 2 of 3

a p p ro p ria te to require Plaintiff to amend his complaint to re-plead a complaint that respects t h e requirements of Rule 8, Fed. R. Civ. P., and the heightened pleading requirement for s u c h cases as well as to correct the deficiencies noted herein. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that on or before June 27, 2006 Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint o n a form for use in filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. See Local Rule 9.1 (requiring pro s e litigants to utilize court's forms). The amended complaint filed in compliance with this o r d e r shall supersede the original complaint. This means that Plaintiff shall no longer rely o n the original complaint and this case will proceed only on those claims raised and against th o s e defendants named in the amended complaint filed in accordance with the order. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's amended complaint shall: 1 . Specifically identify who the named defendants are; 2 . Identify specific claims relative to actions taken against Plaintiff (not other in m a tes ) by the named defendants and list these claims in separate counts; 3. Describe with clarity those factual allegations that are material to each specific c o u n t against the named defendant(s); and 4 . Describe how each named defendant violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights. P lain tiff is hereby advised that the amendment to his complaint must set forth short a n d plain statements showing why he is entitled to relief and be specific enough to put each

2

Case 1:06-cv-00503-MHT-VPM

Document 3

Filed 06/14/2006

Page 3 of 3

d e f e n d a n t on notice of how their conduct allegedly violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights a n d should contain only claims relative to actions taken against him by the named defendants. E a c h allegation in the pleading should be simple, concise and direct. See Rule 8, Federal R u l e s of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is further advised that his failure to timely and properly c o m p ly with the directives contained in this order will result in a Recommendation that this a c tio n be dismissed. Done this 14 th day of June 2 0 0 6 .

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson V A N Z E T T A PENN MCPHERSON U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3