Davidson v. Emmins et al
ORDER directing the plaintiff to amend his complaint within 21 days of this order. (Amended complaint due by 10/13/2016). Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 9/22/16. (cmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
WARDEN S. EMMINS, Johnson State
Prison; DEPUTY WARDEN T.
JEFFERSON, J.S.P.; DEPUTY WARDEN )
C. PRICE, J.S.P.; HEALTH SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION, name unknown,
J.S.P.; DR. SEWARD, MD, J.S.P.;
PA ANDREWS BODI, aka PA BODI,
J.S.P.; NURSE WHITNEY CLAXTON,
Medical Department, J.S.P.; NURSE HALL, )
Medical Department, J.S.P.; SERGEANT
HOBBY, Medical Department, J.S.P.;
NURSE SUTTON, Medical Department,
J.S.P.; NURSE BAILEY, Mental Health
Department, J.S.P.; FNU SCRUTCHEN,
Mental Health Counselor, J.S.P.; FNU
LISIECKI, Mental Health Counselor,
J.S.P.; DR. SPALDING, Mental Health
Director, J.S.P.; GEORGIA DOC,
Ombudsman, Old Tift College; GEORGIA )
CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE; All
Defendants, Jointly and Severally in their
Individual and Professional Capacity; MR.
CRICKMAR, Custodial Warden Only,
HOMER BRYSON1, Georgia Department of )
Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at Hays State Prison (“HSP”) in Trion, Georgia,
commenced the above-captioned case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, concerning events at
Johnson State Prison (“JSP”). Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”), Plaintiff’s
complaint must be screened to protect potential defendants. Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782,
785 (11th Cir. 1984); Al-Amin v. Donald, 165 F. App’x 733, 736 (11th Cir. 2006).
SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT
In his complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants fourteen employees of JSP, the Georgia
Department of Corrections, Georgia Correctional Healthcare, and his current custodial warden
Mr. Crickmar. (Doc. no. 1, p. 1.) Plaintiff later amended his case to add Homer Bryson as a
defendant. (Doc. no. 14.) Taking all of Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true, as the Court must
for purposes of the present screening, the facts are as follows.
On March 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed this § 1983 action in the Northern District of Georgia
alleging (1) mistreatment by medical professionals at JSP, particularly surrounding insulin
treatments for Plaintiff’s diabetes; (2) deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s sores on his face, neck
and back; (3) being denied Wellbutrin, a medication; and (4) medical health professionals
intentionally tampered with one of Plaintiff’s blood samples. (Doc. no. 1.) Plaintiff further
alleges prison officials at JSP retaliatorily transferred him to HSP because of his complaints
about medical care. (Id.)
Because events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims took place in
Wrightsville, Georgia, the Northern District transferred the case to this Court. (Doc. no. 3.)
Plaintiff has subsequently filed a multitude of amendments, exhibits, and affidavits.
The Court DIRECTS the CLERK to add Defendant Homer Bryson to the docket.
Plaintiff first filed an amended complaint purporting to add Homer Bryson as a Defendant “to be
inserted into Plaintiff’s suit after Page 1 and before Page 2.” (Doc. no. 4, p. 2.) Plaintiff then
filed another amendment asking for a jury trial and an appointed lawyer. (Doc. no. 12.) At the
Court’s prompting, Plaintiff requested his civil case numbered CV 315-028 be combined with
the present case because he intended to amend his complaint to add Defendant Homer Bryson
rather than open a new case. (Doc. no. 14.) Plaintiff then filed his complaint in CV 315-028 as
an amended complaint in this case, asking “to be allowed to forego each and every Defendant
claim by Plaintiff, [sic] they are in the body of the suit” because “[t]his case is so complicated
and long.” (Doc. no. 16, p. 4.) Plaintiff also filed an exhibit supporting his claims surrounding
insulin treatments (doc. no. 8), an affidavit alleging the removal of files from his medical records
(doc. no. 18), and an affidavit from a fellow prisoner supporting his claim of retaliatory transfer
(doc. no. 19).
Leave to Amend Complaint.
Here, Plaintiff’s allegations across multiple complaints and other documents do not allow
the Court to conduct a meaningful initial review of his complaint. Plaintiff has filed seven
documents amending his original complaint, adding exhibits to his original or amended
complaints, or otherwise altering his claims. (See doc nos. 1, 4, 8, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19.) These
documents interweave different claims against different defendants in a loosely connected
manner, making it difficult to discern who is being sued and for what. (See id.) Furthermore, in
his most recent amended complaint, Plaintiff attempts to “forgo each and every Defendant claim,
[sic] they are in the body of the suit.” (Doc. no. 16, p. 4.) Such incorporation by reference of
previously submitted claims or papers is forbidden.
See O’Connor v. Carnahan, No.
3:09CV224/WS/EST, 2009 WL 3712316, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2009). Finally, Plaintiff’s
amendments violate the prohibition against piecemeal amendment by simply amending
sections of his complaint or submitting separate filings. See Holland v. Burnette, CV 308090, 2009 WL 1579507, at *1 (S.D. Ga. June 3, 2009). Taking all these deficiencies together,
the Court is unable to adequately review Plaintiff’s complaint.
The Court recognizes Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and will therefore give him an
opportunity to attempt to cure the pleading deficiencies outlined above by amending his
complaint. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to amend his complaint to
include all of his allegations in one document, within twenty-one days of the date of this
Order.2 Plaintiff must use the standard form provided along with this Order, with no more than
six handwritten pages attached. See Goodison v. Washington Mut. Bank, 232 F. App’x 922, 923
(11th Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of case where plaintiff failed to heed pleading instructions
from court to re-draft complaint to make more concise); see also London v. Georgia Dep’t of
Corr., CV 502-107, doc. no. 10 (M.D. Ga. May 10, 2002) (directing amended complaint shall
not exceed six handwritten pages). If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this case, he MUST file an
amended complaint, which MUST be filed in accordance with the following instructions.
The amended complaint must be printed legibly so that the Court may discern
Plaintiff’s claims, and it will supersede and replace in its entirety the previous pleadings filed
The Court DIRECTS the CLERK to attach a standard form complaint used by pro se
litigants in the Southern District of Georgia to Plaintiff’s copy of this Order, stamped with this
by Plaintiff. Krinsk v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., 654 F.3d 1194, 1202 (11th Cir. 2011); Lowery
v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1219 (11th Cir. 2007) (“an amended complaint supersedes
the initial complaint and becomes the operative pleading in the case”). It must contain a
caption that clearly identifies, by name, each individual that Plaintiff is suing in the present
lawsuit. Furthermore, the body of Plaintiff’s amended complaint must contain sequentially
numbered paragraphs containing only one act of misconduct per paragraph. The numbered
paragraphs in his amended complaint should include information such as: (i) the alleged act
of misconduct; (ii) the date on which such misconduct occurred; (iii) the names of each and
every individual who participated in such misconduct; and (iv) where appropriate, the
location where the alleged misconduct occurred. While Plaintiff may attach exhibits to his
amended complaint, he shall not incorporate them by reference as a means of providing the
factual basis for his complaint.3 Thus, Plaintiff must name the individuals whom he seeks to
include as defendants herein in both the caption and the body of his amended complaint; he
may not rely on the fact that individuals are named in the exhibits attached to his amended
complaint as a means of including such persons as defendants to this lawsuit. The Court will
not independently examine exhibits that Plaintiff does not specifically reference (by the
exhibit’s page number) in his amended complaint.
Plaintiff is further cautioned that no portion of any prior complaint shall be
incorporated into his amended complaint by reference. Moreover, Plaintiff shall submit only
one amended complaint in accordance with the terms of this Order. Therefore, Plaintiff shall
For example, Plaintiff should not simply state, “See attached documents.”
state in the single amended complaint filed in accordance with the terms of this Order all
claims that he wishes the Court to consider as a basis for awarding the relief sought. Once
Plaintiff has complied with the conditions of this Order, the Court will review the amended
complaint to determine which, if any, claims are viable and which, if any, defendants should
be served with a copy of the amended complaint. If no response is timely received from
Plaintiff, the Court will presume that he desires to have this case voluntarily dismissed and
will recommend dismissal of this action, without prejudice. Plaintiff is cautioned that while
this action is pending, he shall immediately inform this Court of any change of address.
Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this case.
SO ORDERED this 22nd day of September, 2016, at Augusta, Georgia.
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?