Ludy v. Emmons et al
ORDER directing the Plaintiff to amend the complaint within 14 days of this order, (Amended Pleadings due by 1/31/2017). Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 1/17/17. (cmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SHAWN EMMONS, Warden;
DEANNE MORRIS, Ga. Regent Health
System Health Service Administrator;
CHERIE PRICE, Deputy Warden;
WESLEY O’NEAL, Unit Manager; and
MITZI HALL, Director of Nursing, Ga.
Regent Health System; NURSE PULLINS,
Ga. Regent Health System, Johnson State
Prison; and OFFICER BYRD, Correctional
Officer, Johnson State Prison,
Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at Rutledge State Prison (“RSP”) in Columbus,
Georgia, commenced the above-captioned case concerning events at Johnson State Prison
(“JSP”). At the Court’s direction, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 12,
2016. (Doc. no. 18.) On December 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed the motion to amend presently
before this Court, seeking to add defendants and claims. (Doc. no. 20.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which governs amendment of pleadings, provides
A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21
days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive
pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days
after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.
If a party is not entitled to amend as a matter right under Rule 15(a)(1), then “a party may
amend its pleading only with . . . the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). As a general
rule, leave to amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) is given freely. Saewitz v. Lexington Ins.
Co., 133 F. App’x 695, 699 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,
182 (1962). That said, leave to amend is not guaranteed, and a trial court may deny such
leave “in the exercise of its inherent power to manage the conduct of litigation before it.”
Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253, 1263 (11th Cir. 2008). “In making this determination, a
court should consider whether there has been undue delay in filing, bad faith or dilatory
motives, prejudice to the opposing parties, and the futility of the amendment.” Saewitz, 133
F. App’x at 699 (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182).
Here, Plaintiff has previously filed several amended complaints; thus, Plaintiff is not
entitled to amend as a matter of right. Plaintiff has properly sought the Court’s permission to
amend by filing a motion for leave to amend. See Long v. Satz, 181 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th
Cir. 1999) (“Filing a motion is the proper method to request leave to amend a complaint.”).
Plaintiff asks the Court to read his amended allegations in conjunction with his previously
amended complaint; however, as the Court previously warned Plaintiff, he may not amend
his complaint in a piecemeal manner by simply amending sections of his complaint or
submitting separate filings. (See doc. no. 16, pp. 2-3); see also Holland v. Burnette, CV 308090, 2009 WL 1579507, at *1 (S.D. Ga. June 3, 2009).
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to file an amended complaint
including all of the allegations and defendants in one document, within fourteen days of the
date of this Order.
Plaintiff must use the standard form provided along with this Order,
with no more than six handwritten or typed 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 amend his complaint, he MUST file an amended complaint in accordance
with the following instructions.
The amended complaint must be printed legibly so that the Court may discern
Plaintiff’s claims, and, as the Court previously informed Plaintiff, it will supersede and
replace in its entirety the previous pleadings filed by Plaintiff. (Doc. no. 16, pp. 2-3.); see
also 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
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
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. 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 Plaintiff does not specifically reference (by the exhibit’s
page number) in his amended complaint.
Plaintiff is further cautioned 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
state in the single amended complaint filed in accordance with the terms of this Order all
claims he wishes the Court to consider as a basis for awarding the relief sought.
If no response is timely received from Plaintiff, the Court will presume he no longer
wishes to amend his complaint and the case will move forward on the basis of the current
amended complaint (doc. no. 18).
SO ORDERED this 17th day of January, 2017, 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?