Yates v. Allen et al
ORDER OF DISMISSAL denying 16 Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Assistance. Pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), this case is DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, due to Plaintiff's failure to properly comply with 6 Order entered 1/5/12. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order of Dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 2/6/2012. (jct)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JAMES EUGENE YATES
No. 3:11CV00301 JLH/JTR
MIKE ALLEN, Sheriff of
Crittenden County, et al.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, James Eugene Yates, is a pretrial detainee in the Crittenden County
Detention Facility (“CCDF”). He has recently filed a pro se § 1983 Substituted
Complaint and a Second Motion for Emergency Assistance. The Court will discuss
each matter separately.
I. Plaintiff’s Substituted Complaint
On December 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed a lengthy and confusing Complaint
alleging that thirteen separate Defendants violated his constitutional rights in
numerous and unrelated ways since he began his confinement in the CCDF in March
of 2011. See docket entry #2. For instance, Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that
Defendant: (1) failed to provide him with adequate medical care for a variety of
medical and mental health problems; (2) subjected him to numerous and unrelated
inhumane conditions of confinement; (3) denied him access to the courts; (4)
interfered with his mail; (5) discriminated against him; and (6) used excessive force.
On January 5, 2012, the Court struck the Complaint from the record because it
was filed in clear violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 21. See docket entry #6. Plaintiff
was then given thirty days to file a Substituted Complaint that contained only legally
and factually related claims and that otherwise complied with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.1 Importantly, the Court advised Plaintiff that the case would be
dismissed, without prejudice, if he failed to timely and properly do so. Id.
On January 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Substituted Complaint that is as lengthy
and confusing as his original Complaint. See docket entry #13. Once again, Plaintiff
alleges that fourteen separate Defendants2 have violated his constitutional rights in
numerous and unrelated ways. Id. In fact, it appears that Plaintiff has repeated most,
if not all, of the factually and legally distinct claims raised in his original Complaint.
Specifically, the Court explained to Plaintiff that his Substituted Complaint
set forth claims that: (1) arise out of the same incident or event; and (2)
involve common questions of fact and law. Additionally, the Substituted
Complaint must: (1) name only the Defendants involved in those related
claims; (2) clarify how each named Defendant personally participated
in that specific constitutional violation; and (3) clearly and concisely set
forth the facts giving rise to each related claim, including the time and
place of all relevant incidents.
See docket entry #6 at 5 (emphasis in the original). Additionally, the Court explained
that Plaintiff could bring his factually and legally distinct claims in separate lawsuits.
Twelve of the Defendants were named in Plaintiff’s original Complaint, and
two are newly named Defendants. See docket entry #13.
Accordingly, this case is dismissed, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the clear instructions contained
in the Court’s January 5, 2012 Order.
II. Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Emergency Assistance
On December 30, 20111, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Emergency Assistance,”
alleging that he was receiving inadequate medical care for: (1) type 1 diabetes; (2)
unexplained sores on his head and feet; (3) unspecified kidney problems; (4)
constipation; (5) numbness in his arm; and (6) a “knot” growing on a metal plate in
his head. See docket entry #3.
On January 5, 2012, the Court denied the Motion because Plaintiff failed to
explain: (1) the emergency relief he wanted to receive for his various medical
problems; and (2) how he would suffer “immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or
damage” before the Defendants were served or had an opportunity to address his
allegations. See docket entry #6 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)).
On January 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second Motion for Emergency Assistance
renewing his conclusory allegations that he is receiving inadequate medical care for
the six medical problems listed in his original Motion for Emergency Assistance. See
docket entry #16. Plaintiff now adds that he is also receiving inadequate medical care
for swollen feet and legs, rotting toe nails, unspecified mental illnesses, loose teeth,
sleeplessness, and the loss of 160 pounds in five and one half months. Id. Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an emergency order requiring Defendants to perform
unspecified medical tests and exams to properly diagnose all of his various medical
problems. However, once again, Plaintiff has failed to explain how he will be suffer
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage before the Defendants are served
or have an opportunity to address his allegations. Id. Accordingly, the Motion is
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Emergency Assistance (docket entry #16)
Pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), this case is DISMISSED, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, due to Plaintiff’s failure to properly comply with the Court’s January 5,
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma
pauperis appeal from this Order of Dismissal would not be taken in good faith.
Dated this 6th day of February, 2012.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?