Jones v. Straughn et al

Filing 6

ORDER directing plaintiff to file a second amended complaint in accordance with the Court's directions set forth in this Order within 15 days of the date of this Order. The Clerk is directed to forward to plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 7/17/12. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
BENJAMIN MUHAMMAD JONES,
ADC #89586
v.

PLAINTIFF

5:12-cv-00189-SWW-JTK

WILLIAM STRAUGHN, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

By Order dated June 15, 2012 (Doc. No. 4), this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed
in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, finding Plaintiff’s
Complaint too vague and conclusory to enable the Court to determine whether it is frivolous, fails
to state a claim, or states a legitimate claim with respect to a majority of the named Defendants, the
Court directed him to submit an Amended Complaint within thirty days.1 The Court also cautioned
Plaintiff that an Amended Complaint would render the Original Complaint without legal effect, and
would take the place of his Original Complaint.
Plaintiff has now submitted what has been titled an Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 5). In
this, Plaintiff does not refer to the excessive force or failure to protect allegations set forth in the
Original Complaint, and does not otherwise comply with the directions set forth in the Court’s June
15, 2012 Order, in terms of alleging specific facts against each of the named Defendants in the
Original Complaint. He does state that his legal work has been confiscated, and claims that three
newly-named Defendants are responsible for denying him access to the Courts. However, it is

1

The Court noted that Plaintiff alleged he was assaulted by Defendants Nelson and Sloa
while Defendants Taylor and Crockett watched, and that Defendant Perez failed to adequately treat
his injuries. However, Plaintiff failed to allege specific acts of constitutional violations by eleven
other individuals named as Defendants. (Doc. No. 4, p. 3.)
1

unclear whether Plaintiff is attempting to add this claim to his Complaint, whether he is abandoning
the other claims set forth in his Complaint, or whether he is offering an excuse as to why he has not
submitted an Amended Complaint in accordance with the Court’s June 15, 2012 directions.
Therefore, the Court will provide Plaintiff with one final opportunity in which to clarify his
allegations against the Defendants named in the Original and/or Amended Complaints. Plaintiff
shall specify the following: 1) whether he intends to proceed with the allegations of excessive force,
failure to protect, and denial of medical care against Defendants Nelson, Sloa, Taylor, Crockett, and
Perez; 2) whether he intends to proceed against the remaining named individual Defendants, and if
so, provide specific factual allegations against each of those individuals in a simple, concise, and
direct manner; 3) whether he intends to add a claim of denial of access to the Courts against newlynamed Defendants Morrison, Williams, and Wooten, and if so, provide specific factual allegations
against each of those individuals in a simple concise and direct manner; and 4) state how each
named Defendant caused him harm. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Court will rely
on the Original Complaint he filed (Doc. No. 1), and will proceed with the claims against only
Defendants Nelson, Sloa, Taylor, Crockett, and Perez, as set forth earlier in this Order and in the
June 15, 2012 Order. Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint in
accordance with the Court’s directions set forth above, within fifteen days of the date of this Order.
The Clerk is directed to forward to the Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of July, 2012.

__________________________________
JEROME T. KEARNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2