MAY v. INGRAM et al

Filing 9

ORDER to SUPPLEMENT 1 Complaint filed by CELESTE JANYA MAY, and ORDER DENYING 8 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by CELESTE JANYA MAY. Ordered by US Mag Judge Stephen Hyles on 11/22/11. (lws)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
CELESTE JANYA MAY,

:
:
Plaintiff
:
:
VS.
:
:
LISA INGRAM, et. al.,
:
:
Defendants
:
_________________________________:

NO. 5:11-CV-327 -CAR - MSH

ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT
Plaintiff CELESTE JANYA MAY, a prisoner at the Pulaski State Prison in
Hawkinsville, Georgia, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983.
The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis, and
Plaintiff has now paid an initial partial filing fee as ordered by this Court. However,
before the Court can conduct a review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, as required by 42 U.S.C.
§1915A, Plaintiff will need to file a supplement to her Complaint. Plaintiff=s present
Complaint suffers from multiple deficiencies.
In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that employees of the Hope House of Oconee
Center (presumably a public, non-profit rehabilitation facility)1 locked her in an office,
held her down, bit and scratched her, and pulled her hair. Plaintiff names the “Hope
House Oconee Center,” the Coordinator of the Hope House, Lisa Ingram, and two
1 The Court takes notice that the Oconee Center is a public, non-profit agency organized as a community
service board under Georgia Law, OCGA § 37-2-1 et. seq. See Oconee Comty. Svc. Bd. v. Holsey, 266 Ga.
App. 385, 385-86, 597 S.E.2d 489 (2004) (finding that OCSB was entitled to sovereign immunity); see e.g.,
Middleton v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 2005 WL 2495358 at * 2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 10, 2005) (taking
judicial notice that defendant was a for-profit, private corporation).

“house parents,” Patricia Anderson and Carlon Simons, as the defendants in this action.
According to Plaintiff, Ms. Ingram and Ms. Simons held Plaintiff in the office against her
will and assaulted her, while Ms. Anderson stood outside the door preventing others from
coming to her aid. Plaintiff requests that this Court “press charges” against all Defendants
and award her damages for “pain and suffering.” According to Plaintiff, the event
“devastated” her “both emotionally and mentally.” However, the extent and severity of
Plaintiff’s physical injuries is unclear. Plaintiff only briefly notes that she was sent to the
hospital after the event and “received a shot for the bite marks.”
Clearly, this Court has no jurisdiction to institute criminal proceedings against
Defendants. See Otero v. U. S. Attorney Gen., 832 F.2d 141, 141 (11th Cir. 1987); Bennett
v. Hall, 2010 WL 4024006 at *2 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 13, 2010). Plaintiff thus cannot state a
claim for such relief. The Court, however, may award Plaintiff damages under §1983 if
she is able to prove that a state actor deprived her of some right guaranteed by the
Constitution or a statute of the United States and that she suffered an injury therefrom. Hale
v. Tallapoosa County, 50 F.3d 1579, 1581 (11th Cir. 1995).
Presently, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to provide enough detail of the event to allow
the Court to determine whether she has stated plausible claims against all Defendants.
Plaintiff is therefore DIRECTED to supplement her Complaint by describing the specific
actions taken by each of the named Defendants or the duties they failed to perform that
allegedly violated her constitutional rights. Plaintiff should specifically add detail
describing the events leading up to the alleged attack and the injuries suffered. Plaintiff’s
2

supplement should not exceed five (5) handwritten pages. Additional detail about the
event is needed; a long narrative describing Plaintiff’s entire stay at Hope House is not. In
an effort to assist Plaintiff’s compliance with this Order, the Clerk is DIRECTED to mail
Plaintiff a new 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 complaint form showing this case number.
Though Plaintiff has requested via a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No.
8) that counsel be appointed to assist her in prosecuting this case, no counsel will be
appointed at this time. Her request is premature. Until such time as the Court has an
opportunity to review responsive pleadings from Defendants, it cannot properly evaluate
Plaintiff=s need for counsel. Should it become apparent later on in the proceedings that
counsel should be appointed, after due consideration of the complexity of the issues raised
or their novelty, Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025 (11th Cir. 1987), the Court will entertain
a renewed motion.
Plaintiff will have TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS from the date of this Order to
submit a supplement to her Complaint. If Plaintiff fails to respond to this Order in a
timely manner, her Complaint may be dismissed.
There shall be no service of process until further order of the Court.
SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of November, 2011.
S/STEPHEN HYLES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3