Nurideen v. Ware State Prison Medical Department et al

Filing 29

ORDER granting in part 24 Motion for Leave to Include Conspiracy Ground to Complaint; granting in part 25 Motion to Preserve Jury Trial; and granting in part 27 Motion for Joinder, but only to the extent the contentions contained in these Mo tions will be considered during the frivolity review of Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff also is advised, yet again, that his failure to respond to this Order and its directives in a proper manner may result in the dismissal of his entire cause of action. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Graham on 1/30/2015. (csr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
WAYCROSS DIVISION
SAEED ISHMAEL NURIDEEN,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV514-041

WARE STATE PRISON MEDICAL
DEPARTMENT; WARDEN, WARE
STATE PRISON; FNU HART; ROBERT
TOOLE; GLEN JOHNSON; J. RECTOR;
J. JANIKOWSKI; DR. FERRELL (male);
DR. FERRELL (female); DR. TESFAYE;
MS. BRADY; and MS. McCRAY,

I

Defendants.

ORDER
Plaintiff filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contesting certain
conditions of his confinement at Ware State Prison in Waycross, Georgia, and he
named the "Ware State Prison Medical Department' and "Ware State Prison Warden"
as the Defendants. The undersigned conducted a frivolity review of Plaintiffs Complaint
and recommended that the Complaint be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted. In response, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend
his Complaint, which the undersigned granted, and an Amended Complaint. In the
Order which granted Plaintiffs Motion to Amend his Complaint, the undersigned
directed the Clerk of Court to add several individuals as named Defendants. (Doc. No.
15). Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Exclude Certain Portions of his Original Complaint,
which the undersigned granted.
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

After review of his Amended Complaint, the undersigned informed Plaintiff that
his claims were unrelated and directed Plaintiff to advise the Court of which claims from
a specific date he wishes to pursue in this cause of action. Plaintiff also was advised
that his failure to file a proper response to the undersigned's Order could result in the
dismissal of his entire cause of action. Plaintiff further was advised that, once he files a
response to this Order, the requisite frivolity review of his claims would occur. (Doc. No.
23).
In response to the undersigned's directives, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to
Include Conspiracy Ground to Complaint, a Motion to Preserve Jury Trial, and a Motion
for Leave of Joinder of Claims. Plaintiffs Motions, (doc. nos. 24, 25, 27), are

GRANTED, but only to the extent the contentions contained in these Motions will be
considered during the frivolity review of Plaintiff's claims.
Plaintiff is once again advised that his claims are unrelated.

FED. R. Civ. P.

20(a). Plaintiff also is once again directed to advise the Court of which allegations he
wishes to pursue in this cause of action, i.e., events stemming from events occurring on:
May 14, 2011; March 26, 2012; April 19, 2013; or March 19, 2014, within twenty (20)
days of this Order. Plaintiff also is advised, yet again, that his failure to respond to this
Order and its directives in a proper manner may result in the dismissal of his entire
cause of action.

SO ORDERED, this _____ day of January, 2015.

,

liES E. GRAHAM
lIED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

2