Cloy v. Bouckuey et al
Order denying 12 MOTION to summons special master filed by Rickie Lee Cloy. Denying 17 MOTION to Stay filed by Rickie Lee Cloy. It is ORDERED that plaintiff now file, by 5/20/2013, a second amended complaint on this Court's § 1983 complaint form that corrects the pleading deficiencies noted in the Court's 16 Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine P. Nelson on 3/21/2013. copy of order and form mailed to plf. (sdb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
RICKIE LEE CLOY,
TRACY BOUCKUEY, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-00718-KD-N
This action is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion (doc. 17) to stay this action to
allow plaintiff time to “adequately prepare a proper 1983 [Complaint using the Court’s
form].” A stay of this action would be inappropriate and, consequently, plaintiff’s
motion to stay is hereby DENIED. The Court will, however, grant plaintiff additional
time to comply with the Order entered on February 13, 2013 (doc. 16). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff now file no later than May 20, 2013, a second amended
complaint on this Court’s § 1983 complaint form that corrects the pleading deficiencies
noted in the Court’s Order dated February 21, 2013 (doc. 16) and states a claim for a
violation of his constitutional rights.
As stated previously, plaintiff’s second amended complaint will supercede
plaintiff’s prior complaints (docs. 1,4). Plaintiff, therefore, shall not rely on them. The
Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a form for a complaint under § 1983.
Failure to comply with this order within the prescribed time or to notify the Court
of a change of address will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice. And a
failure to plead a second amended complaint that complies with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), after
being required to replead a complaint, may result in the dismissal of the action under
Fed.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), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 855 (1991).
On January 2, 2013, plaintiff filed a “Petition to Summon a Special Master” (doc.
12) pursuant to § 16.8 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Upon consideration of this
petition and all pertinent portions of the record, the Court finds that it has previously
advised the plaintiff that he is not entitled to appointed counsel because he has not
“demonstrated that his case present[s] exceptional circumstances warranting the
appointment of counsel.” Doc. 10 at 1-2, citing Tipps v. Leonard, 2009 WL 1362831, *1
(5th Cir. May 15, 2009); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982).
The circumstances warranting the appointment of a Special Master must be even more
exceptional than that required for appointment of counsel in a case such as this one. It is,
therefore, ORDERED that plaintiff’s petition (doc. 12) is hereby DENIED.
21st day of March, 2013.
/s/Katherine P. Nelson
KATHERINE P. NELSON
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?