Boatman v. Sawyer et al

Filing 48

OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part re: 46 MOTION for Miscellaneous Relief, specifically for order, 47 MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend re 26 Amended Complaint is denied, stricken and returned to plaintiff and removed. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 6/9/2020. (SLU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
RAYVON L. BOATMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 2:18-cv-418-FtM-38MRM

DONALD SAWYER, REBECCA
JACKSON, M. JOHNSON, JOHN
DOE HERNANDEZ, JANE DOE
MORRIS, GEO GROUP, INC.
DIRECTORS, CORRECT CARE
RECOVERY SOLUTIONS
DIRECTORS, THE DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICE, THE FLORIDA CIVIL
COMMITMENT CENTER
DIRECTORS, MALINDA MASTERS,
JORGE DOMENICI, WILLIAM H.
JAYNES, DALE W. FRICK, LAURA
K. LEONARD, DOROTHY RIDDLE
and SARAH SENTER,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is Plaintiff Rayvon Boatman’s Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
Specifically for an Order (Doc. 46) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Amend.
(Doc. 47). No response in opposition was filed.

1

Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the
Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products
they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s
availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order.

Plaintiff moves the Court for clarification of the Court’s Order dismissing his
Amended Complaint (Doc. 40) and requests an extension of time to amend. Plaintiff’s
Motion is not a model of clarity, its pieced together from several previous motions, and
consists of repeated allegations from his Amended Complaint. The case was dismissed
so no extension of time may be granted. As to the request for clarification, the Court
found Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 26) to be a shotgun pleading that failed to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court gave Plaintiff leave to amend
and bring only a claim for retaliation, but he failed to do so within the Court’s deadline.
Plaintiff’s case was therefore, dismissed under M.D. Fla. R. 3.10(a) for failure to
prosecute. (Doc. 44). Even so, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was dismissed without
prejudice so Plaintiff can pursue his claims by filing a new case.
As for Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time to Amend, (Doc. 47) this case
was dismissed (Doc. 44) and judgment was entered. (Doc. 45). Because this case has
been dismissed no relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff Rayvon Boatman’s Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Specifically for an
Order is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
a. Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification (Doc. 46) is GRANTED as detailed
above.
b. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 46) is DENIED.

2

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time to Amend (Doc. 47) is DENIED and
STRICKEN. The Clerk of Court shall remove the Motion and return the filing
along with a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 9th day of June 2020.

SA: FTMP-2
Copies: All Parties of Record

3