CARMACK v. South Georgia Medical Center et al

Filing 4

ORDER directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint not later than 9/22/2013. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 8/22/2013. (nbp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION

REBECCA CARMACK,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 7:13-CV-81 (HL)

SOUTH
GEORGIA
MEDICAL
CENTER, LINDA TOOMBS, STEVE
DALE, and ALBERTA GRAHAM,
Defendants.

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Rebecca Carmack’s Motion for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) (Doc. 2). Prior to ruling on the motion, the
Court orders Plaintiff to amend her complaint as stated below.
Although the complaint lacks the precision and clarity one might desire in a
pleading, it appears to allege a defamation claim. (Doc. 1, pg. 2).1 To comply with
Georgia law for a prima facie defamation count, the Court orders Plaintiff to
amend her complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and allege (1)
the name or identify of the person who made the defamatory statement; (2) the
nature of the false and defamatory statement; (3) how the statement was
1

Construing the complaint liberally in light of the fact that Plaintiff is proceeding
pro se, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), it appears to also allege a
claim of employment discrimination that would fall under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court will address the ADA claim when it rules on
Plaintiff’s IFP Motion.

published or shared with a third party; and (4) the nature of the harm Plaintiff
suffered. Further, the Court orders Plaintiff in amending the complaint to list the
defendant or defendants she alleges are liable for defamation. Failure to amend
the complaint and include these specific factual allegations will result in the
dismissal of Plaintiff’s defamation claim.
Wherefore, the Court orders Plaintiff to amend her complaint as stated
herein by September 22, 2013, or the defamation claim will be dismissed without
further notice from the Court. Once the amended complaint is filed, or the date to
do so has run, the Court will decide the pending IFP Motion. The Court defers
ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP (Doc. 2) until that time.

SO ORDERED, this the 22nd day of August, 2013.

s/ Hugh Lawson_______________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
scr

2