Hendrix v. Giles et al (INMATE1)

Filing 7

ORDER; that the motion to amend be and is hereby DENIED; The plaintiff is advised that he may challenge the April 5, 2010 incident referenced in theinstant motion to amend by filing a separate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. To aid the plaintiff in filing an action, the Clerk is DIRECTED to return to the plaintiff the proposed amendment to the [6-2] and the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed in thereof [6-3]. Signed by Honorable Susan Russ Walker on 4/20/2010. (jg, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION KENNETH WAYNE HENDRIX, AIS #208777, Plaintiff, v. J. C. GILES, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-CV-183-ID [WO] ORDER ON MOTION Upon consideration of the motion to amend complaint filed by the plaintiff on April 20, 2010 (Court Doc. No. 6), and as the incident the plaintiff seeks to amend is separate from the incident about which he complains in the initial complaint, it is ORDERED that the motion to amend be and is hereby DENIED. The plaintiff is advised that he may challenge the April 5, 2010 incident referenced in the instant motion to amend by filing a separate 42 U.S.C. 1983 action. To aid the plaintiff in filing such an action, the Clerk is DIRECTED to return to the plaintiff the proposed amendment to the complaint (Court Doc. No. 6-2) and the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed in support thereof (Court Doc. No. 6-3). Done this 20th day of April, 2010. /s/ Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER CHIEF 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?