Hysmith v. Miles (INMATE 2)
ORDER directing the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on a form for use in filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint on or before July 8, 2011; directing Clerk to supply the proper form. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 6/24/2011. (br, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
RODNEY THOMAS HYSMITH,
LT. CHRIS MILES, et al.,
Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated at the Elmore County Jail located in Wetumpka,
Alabama. He files the instant pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action which is now 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 four 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. Moreover, the complaint appears
to allege claims that occurred at different times and places and also contains claims that are
not related to each other. That is, this action contains claim based on a dispute over unrelated
arrests of Plaintiff by various law enforcement officers, the sufficiency of evidence used to
indict Plaintiff on drug charges, deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s safety during a police
transport, a failure to protect Plaintiff in the jail, a denial of medical care, a failure to release
Plaintiff on bond, and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Plaintiff files this action
against Lieutenant Chris Miles, George McCain, the Tallassee Police Department, and E.
“This type of pleading completely disregards Rule 10(b)'s requirement that discrete
claims should be plead in separate counts, see Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Tr., 77 F.3d 364-36667 (11 th Cir. 1996), and is the type of complaint that [has been] criticized time and again.”
Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11 th Cir. 2001). 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 the heightened pleading requirement for such
cases as well as to correct the deficiencies noted herein.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that on or before July 8, 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 which 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. Specifically identify the individual(s) Plaintiff seeks to name as a defendant(s);
4. Identify specific claims relative to actions taken against Plaintiff by the named
defendant(s) and list these claims in separate counts. Plaintiff must state what that individual
defendant did or failed to do and what he or she knew.
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).
Plaintiff is advised that his failure to file a 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 a 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 re-plead 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. 1991).
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 24 th day of June 2011.
/s/ Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
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?