Johnson v. Boyd et al (INMATE2)

Filing 5

ORDER that on or before 6/28/2011 Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on a form for use in filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as further set out in the order. See Local Rule 9.1 (requiring pro se litigants to utilize court's forms). The amended complaint filed in compliance with this order shall supersede the original complaint. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's amended complaint should comply with FRCP 8(a)(2) as further set out in the order. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a form for use in filing a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to assist him in complying with the directives contained herein. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 6/14/2011. Copy w/ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint form mailed to Plaintiff as directed. (dmn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
____________________________
DEMARQUIES JOHNSON
#178 713
Plaintiff,
v.
LOUIS D. BOYD, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________

*
*
*

2:11-CV-360-WHA
(WO)

*
*

ORDER
This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint is filed by Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated in the
Easterling Correctional Facility in Clio, Alabama. The complaint is before the court for
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A thorough review of this complaint
indicates that although Plaintiff lists nine defendants to this cause of action, the complaint
consists merely of general conclusions of constitutional violations and fails to identify
factual allegations material to specific counts lodged against the named defendants with
respect to any violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.1 Moreover, the complaint
contains claims that are not related to each other. That is, this action contains claims based
on a dispute over: 1) unconstitutional living conditions; 2) de facto policies which prohibit
inmate use of toilet facilities between 10:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. and arbitrarily impose false
1

Plaintiff may not litigate claims on behalf of other inmates in this complaint. While a pro se
litigant may bring his own claims to federal court, he may not litigate the claims of others. See 28
U.S.C. § 1654; Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir.1975); see also Hummer v. Dalton,
657 F.2d 621, 623 (4th Cir. 1981).

disciplinary charges on inmates; 3) the ability to access the

courts; 4) inadequate

exercise/yard time; 5) a no smoking policy; and 5) mail policies.
In light of the foregoing, the court deems it appropriate to require Plaintiff to amend
his complaint to re-plead a complaint that respects the requirements of Rule 8, F.R.Civ.P.,
and the heightened pleading requirement for such cases as well as to correct the deficiencies
noted herein.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that on or before June 28, 2011 Plaintiff shall:
1. File an amended complaint 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). The
amended complaint filed in compliance with this order shall supersede the original
complaint. This means that Plaintiff shall no longer rely on the original complaint and this
case will proceed only on those claims raised and against those defendants named in the
amended complaint filed in accordance with the order. That being said, the claims in the
complaint form 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;
2. File an amended complaint that contains one claim and any claims that can be

shown closely related to it, i.e., arising out of the same incident or facts;
3. Identify specific claims relative to actions taken against him by those persons

named as defendants and list these claims in separate counts;
4. Describe with clarity those factual allegations that are material to each specific
count against the named defendants; and
5. Describe how the named defendants violated his constitutional rights.
It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's amended complaint should comply with Rule 8(a)(2),
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, which “requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ Specific facts are not necessary, rather
the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 555, 127 S.Ct.
1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). “Plaintiff's obligation
to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id.
at 1965 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986) (on a motion to dismiss, courts
“are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”)).
Plaintiff is further advised that his failure to timely and properly comply with the directives
contained in this order will result in a Recommendation that this action be dismissed.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a form for use in filing a complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 to assist him in complying with the directives contained herein.

Done, this 14 th day of June 2011.

/s/ Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE