Moore v. Hall et al

Filing 36

ORDER denying as moot 34 Motion for clarification. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 6/2/17. (cmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION
WILLIE GEORGE MOORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JORGE CASTRO, Ex-CERT Team
Officer, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
CV 317-002
)
)
)
)
)
_________
ORDER
_________

Plaintiff, an inmate at Telfair State Prison in Helena, Georgia, commenced the abovecaptioned case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis.
On May 15, 2017, the Court (1) screened Plaintiff’s amended complaint, (2) recommended
dismissing two defendants at Plaintiff’s request and any official capacity claims for monetary
relief, and (3) decided the claim against Defendant Castro for deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff’s safety will proceed. (See doc. nos. 31, 32.) Pending final action by the presiding
District Judge on the recommendation for dismissal of two defendants and any official capacity
claims for monetary relief, the Court stayed the deadline for responding to the amended
complaint and notifying the Court whether the motion to dismiss filed with respect to the original
complaint will be withdrawn. (Doc. no. 31, p. 3.)
In the meantime, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Request of Clarification in Amended
Complaint and of Alias Names.” (Doc. no. 34.) In the motion, Plaintiff explains he does not

seek injunctive relief against Defendant Castro concerning a change in prison policy, relief he
previously sought against supervisors at the prison prior to his voluntary dismissal of Defendants
Hall and Beasley. (Id. at 2.) The Court has already made its recommendation with respect to
dismissing official capacity monetary claims, and Plaintiff acknowledges no official capacity
injunctive relief claims remain. Therefore, no further clarification on this point is necessary.
Plaintiff also seeks to clarify the status of alias names included in an exhibit to
Defendants’ motion to dismiss claims in the original complaint and asks the Court to correct
alleged errors in the records of the Georgia Department of Corrections (“DOC”). (Id. at 3-4.)
First, the alias names about which Plaintiff complains were included as part of an attachment to a
motion to dismiss which may no longer have any relevance to this case. (Doc. no. 18-2, p. 40.)
As defense counsel explained, the motion to dismiss regarding the original complaint sought to
dismiss all claims “except a single, individual capacity damages claim against Defendant
Castro.” (Doc. no. 19-1, p. 3 n.1.) Moreover, filing an amended complaint generally renders
moot any pending motion to dismiss the original complaint. Wimberly v. Broome, CV 615-023,
2016 WL 3264346, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2016) (collecting cases), adopted by, 2016 WL
3360521 (S.D. Ga. June 14, 2016). Thus, the attachment about which Plaintiff complains likely
no longer has any relevance to a motion requiring a ruling from this Court.
Second, the document is offered only as information collected during the institutional
level investigation of a grievance Plaintiff filed regarding the incident forming the basis of this
lawsuit, not as an official criminal history. (Doc. no. 18-2, pp. 10-11, ¶ 24.) It is offered to
support an argument concerning exhaustion of administrative remedies, an argument that
according to prior representations of counsel cited above, has no bearing on the remaining claim
against Defendant Castro. To the extent Plaintiff is concerned the Court will penalize Plaintiff
2

for providing false information on his amended complaint concerning “all other names by which
[he has] been known,” (doc. no. 30, p. 2), he need not worry. The Court will not rely on an
attachment to an exhibit offered for an alternate purpose to conclude Plaintiff may have provided
false information that warrants the imposition of a penalty in this case. Likewise, the Court
cannot rely on the handwritten criminal history Plaintiff attached to his motion to determine
corrections to DOC records are necessary. (Doc. no. 34, p. 5.)
In sum, Plaintiff disclosed his name and prison identification number on the complaint,
and the Court therefore need not delve into the propriety of any associated aliases. Plaintiff has
not suffered any penalty or prejudice in this case based on the identification information
provided in the amended complaint. To the extent Plaintiff believes there may be an issue with
his DOC records, he must pursue any corrective action through DOC officials. Accordingly, the
Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s “clarification” motion. (Doc. no. 34.)
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of June, 2017, at Augusta, Georgia.

3