Harris v. Savannah Chatham Metropolitan Police Department

Filing 39

ORDER denying 38 Motion for Discovery and directing the plaintiff to file an amended complaint by placing it within his prison's mail system, within 30 days from the date of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 7/30/18. (jrb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
ERIC LATROY HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCMPD (CNT AGENTS),
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

FILED
Scott L. Poff, Clerk
United States District Court

By jburrell at 9:16 am, Jul 30, 2018

CV417-154

ORDER
The Court directed pro se plaintiff Eric Harris to file an Amended
Complaint, based upon information about the officers involved in his
arrest who allegedly subjected him to excessive force. Doc. 36. He timely
responded to that directive.

Doc. 37.

His response, however, is

inadequate. He now moves to compel further discovery. Doc. 38.
Harris alleges that he was subjected to excessive force during his
July 2017 arrest. See doc. 8 at 5 (Amended Complaint). He sought to
proceed against unnamed “CNT Agents.” See id. at 1. The Court has
explained to Harris several times that he must identify the officers who
allegedly subjected him to excessive force. See doc. 27 at 2-3; doc. 30 at 2;
doc. 36 at 1-2. Despite that direction, Harris has filed a request to amend

his allegations and “change the Defendants from SCMPD (CNT Agents)
to . . . SCMPD (SWAT Team), Richard Green, Derek Bradley, ET AL.
[sic] . . . .” Doc. 37. That request is not an Amended Complaint and it
does not identify the officers in question. Harris has never contended
that every SWAT officer identified in the discovery documents
participated in the alleged excessive force, and he cannot proceed against
the SWAT team as a whole unless he states a plausible claim against
each of its members.1
Accordingly, the Court will provide Harris with ONE more chance
to amend. His Amended Complaint must include a coherent “short and
plain statement of the claim showing” that he is entitled to the relief
sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). That means he must present the Court
with the factual allegations that support his claims. See Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (complaints must contain factual
allegations “sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level”).

Mere conclusions that defendant violated the law are not

enough. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). He is further
1

Even if he does contend that every officer was involved, his request to modify the
style of his Complaint does not comply with the Court’s directive to file an Amended
Complaint. To clarify, Harris must file a new Complaint that is complete in itself and
which identifies, by name, the officers he contends subjected him to excessive force.
2

advised that his amended complaint will supersede the previous versions
and therefore must be complete in itself.2 Once he files an Amended
Complaint, the original pleadings will no longer serve any function in the
case. He must file that amendment, by signing it and placing it
within his prison’s mail system, within 30 days from the date of
this Order. Failure to comply may result in dismissal. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41.
As the Court has previously explained to Harris, discovery may
proceed after the proper defendants have been identified and served. See
doc. 27 at 4 n. 1. His present motion, seeking “video from the body cams
that [the unidentified] SWAT [officers] had attached to there bullet proof
vest [sic]” remains premature. Doc. 38 at 1. It is, therefore, DENIED.
Doc. 38.
SO ORDERED, this 30th day of July, 2018.

2

See Malowney v. Fed. Collection Deposit Grp, 193 F.3d 1342, 1345 n. 1 (11th Cir.
1999) (“An amended complaint supersedes an original complaint”); Varnes v. Local
91, Glass Bottle Blowers Ass’n of U.S. & Canada, 674 F.2d 1365, 1370 n. 6 (11th Cir.
1982) (“As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original
complaint unless the amendment specifically refers to or adopts the earlier
pleading”).
3