Russ v. Arnette et al (INMATE 2)
ORDER directing the plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before August 31, 2011, on a form for use in filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint; directing Clerk to provide the 1983 form. Signed by Honorable Judge Terry F. Moorer on 8/17/2011. (br, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EVANS RUSS, JR.,
JASON ARNETTE, et al.,
This matter is before the court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Upon review of the complaint, the court finds that the pleading contains claims that are not
related to each other. That is, this action contains claims based on a dispute over an arrest
without probable cause, an illegal detention and imprisonment, imposition of illegal charges,
denial of access to the courts, and conditions of confinement.
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff is
ORDERED to file an amended complaint on or before August 31, 2011, on a form
for use in filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. See Local Rule 9.1 (requiring pro se litigants
to utilize court's forms). Plaintiff's original complaint shall be superseded by this amended
complaint. That means Plaintiff shall no longer rely on the original complaint. That being
said, the claims and defendants in the amended complaint should be less numerous than those
contained in the original complaint due to the following pleading requirements. It is
necessary for Plaintiff to file a separate complaint for each claim unless the claims are
related to the same incident or issue. Thus, for each different claim, Plaintiff must file a
separate complaint and pay the $350.00 filing fee or, in lieu thereof, file a motion to proceed
without prepayment of fees and costs. Plaintiff must, therefore, decide on which claim he
will proceed in this action.
Accordingly, it is further ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff file an amended complaint containing one claim and any claims that can
be shown closely related to it, i.e., arising out of the same incident or facts;
2. In that portion of the complaint form where Plaintiff must identify each individual
that he seeks to name as a defendant, Plaintiff must provide facts to show that individual's
participation or involvement in his claim. That is, Plaintiff must state what that individual
defendant did or failed to do and what he or she knew. If there are more defendants than
there are spaces on the form, Plaintiff may attach additional pages to the form, but he must
follow the format contained in the form for each additional defendant and identify his
claim(s) against each defendant;
3. Plaintiff's amended complaint should comply with F.R.Civ.P. 8(a) which requires
that a plaintiff plead "'a short and plain statement of the claim that will give the defendant
fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim' is and the grounds upon which it rests." Leatherman
v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993)
(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47(1957); see Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553,
556-57 (11th Cir. 1984) (finding vague and conclusory claims are subject to dismissal).
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send to Plaintiff a form for use in filing a complaint under
§ 1983. Plaintiff is advised that his failure to file an amended complaint within the
prescribed time and in accordance with the directives contained in this order will result in a
Recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to obey the court's
order. Furthermore, the failure to plead an amended complaint that complies with F.R.Civ.P.
8(a), that is, a complaint that provides fair notice to the court and a defendant of the claim
against the defendant, after being required to replead a complaint, will result in a
Recommendation that the complaint be dismissed under F.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to
comply with the court's order. Pelletier v. Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465, 1522 n.103 (11th Cir.
Done, this 17th day of August 2011.
/s/ Terry F. Moorer
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?