Croston v. Burl et al

Filing 20

ORDER re 3 Amended Complaint filed by Detrick D Croston. Pltf is directed to file a superceding Amended Complaint which clearly sets forth his claims against the four new defts named in his Amended Complaint. The superceding Amended Complaint should be filed within 15 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 4/19/11. (kpr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION DETRICK D. CROSTON, ADC #131172 v. PLAINTIFF 2:11-cv-00006-JMM-JTK DANNY BURL, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff Detrick Croston, an inmate incarcerated at the East Arkansas Regional Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), filed this action against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following the filing of his Original Complaint, Plaintiff submitted an Amended Complaint, adding four Defendants (Doc. No. 3). This Amended Complaint was not reviewed prior to issuance of the Order directing service on the original Defendants (Doc. No. 4). The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(b). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendants Polly James, Shelia Henderson, Deborah Smith, and Janice Gray to be too vague and conclusory to support a constitutional claim against them. Plaintiff alleges they are grievance review officers and were aware of the unconstitutional actions of the other Defendants. However, Plaintiff does not specifically state the unconstitutional actions of each of these new Defendants or 1 how their actions relate to the claims asserted in his Original Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file a superseding Amended Complaint which clearly sets forth his claims against these four new Defendants. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff shall specifically and clearly state the following: (1) the name of each individual personally involved in the actions at issue in the complaint; (2) how each individual was personally involved in those actions; and (3) how each individual violated the Plaintiff's constitutional rights. Plaintiff must set forth specific facts concerning the allegations he has set forth including, where applicable, dates, times and places. Plaintiff also must explain how each of these Defendants’ actions relate to the incidents complained about in his Original Complaint. Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint in accordance with the above instructions within fifteen days of the date of this Order. Failure to file an Amended Complaint will result in dismissal of Defendants James, Henderson, Smith and Gray from his Complaint for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of April, 2011. ____________________________________ JEROME T. KEARNEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

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?