Mayo v. Bentley et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 4

ORDER that on or before 6/10/2011 Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on a form for use in filing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as further set out in the order. The Clerk is DIRECTED to furnish Plaintiff with a form for use in filing a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Signed by Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker on 5/27/2011. Copy w/ complaint form mailed to Plaintiff as directed. (dmn)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION _____________________________ DAVID LEE MAYO, #241 618 * Plaintiff, * v. * RICHARD ALLEN, et al., * Defendants. _____________________________ 2:11-CV-392-ID (WO) * ORDER This case is presently pending before the court on a complaint filed by David Mayo, an inmate incarcerated at the Easterling Correctional Facility. A thorough review of this complaint reflects that although Plaintiff lists seven defendants in 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. Accordingly, 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 to correct the deficiencies noted herein. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that on or before June 10, 2011 Plaintiff shall 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. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall: 1. Identify specific claims relative to actions taken against him by those persons named as defendants and list these claims in separate counts; 2. Describe with clarity those factual allegations that are material to each specific count against the named defendants; and 3. Describe how the named defendants violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff is hereby advised that the amendment to his complaint must set forth short and plain statements showing why he is entitled to relief and be specific enough to put each defendant on notice of how their conduct allegedly violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and should contain only claims relative to actions taken against him by the named defendants. “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) 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. T wombly, 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 2 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 furnish Plaintiff with a form for use in filing a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Done, this 27 th day of May 2011. /s/ Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3

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?