Scott v. Ore et al
Filing
7
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 10/20/2014. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as a violation of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff must file an amended complaint in compliance with this court order on or before November 14, 2014. If the Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by this deadline or ignores the court's specific directions, his case may be dismissed. The clerk of the court is to provide the Plaintiff with a blank complaint form to assist him and reset a merit review deadline for December 1, 2014.(DM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 20 October, 2014 03:15:35 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
DENNIS SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALICE ORE, et. al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
14-CV-3271
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and detained in the Rushville
Treatment and Detention Center, seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.
The “privilege to proceed without posting security for costs and
fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished litigants who, within the
District Court's sound discretion, would remain without legal remedy if
such privilege were not afforded to them.” Brewster v. North Am. Van
Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972). Additionally, a court
must dismiss cases proceeding in forma pauperis “at any time” if the
action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim, even if part of the
filing fee has been paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this Court
1
grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis only if the complaint states a
federal claim.
In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts the factual
allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff's favor. Turley
v. Rednour, --- F.3d ---, 2013 WL 3336713 * 2 (7th Cir. 2103). However,
conclusory statements are insufficient. Enough facts must be provided
to "'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Alexander v.
U.S., 2013 WL 3215667 *2 (7th Cir. 2013)(quoted cite omitted).
The court first notes the Plaintiff currently has a lawsuit pending in
the Central District of Illinois alleging Defendants Travis Smith and Ryan
Kerr were deliberately indifferent to his serious s medical condition when
he was denied dialysis treatment for five continuous days in March of
2013. See Scott v Smith, Case No. 13-3157, July 11, 2013 Merit Review
Opinion.
In the case before the court, the Plaintiff’s confusing and repetitive
complaint is difficult to decipher. He again makes reference to the denial
of dialysis in March of 2013, but appears to be attempting to add new
Defendants. For instance, the Plaintiff alleges Defendant Nurse Alice Orr
and Security Therapist Aide Rose Taylor denied him dialysis during the
same time period in March of 2013. (Comp, p. 8, 14). In addition, the
2
Plaintiff alleges the new Defendants denied him dialysis in July and
August of 2014 and retaliated against him for his previous lawsuit.
The Plaintiff cannot combine these allegations in a new lawsuit. If
the Plaintiff wishes to add Defendants to a claim which is already
pending before this Court, then he must file a motion for leave to amend
his complaint in that case. Therefore, if the Plaintiff wishes to add
additional Defendants to his claim that he was denied dialysis during the
five day period in March of 2013, he must file a motion to amend in Scott
v Smith, Case No. 13-3157. The motion must include a proposed
amended complaint setting forth all claims against all Defendants, and
must not make reference to any previous complaint.
The Plaintiff may proceed in this lawsuit with his unrelated claims
involving a denial of dialysis in July and August of 2014 and retaliation
for his previous lawsuit. However, to avoid confusion, the court will
require the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint clarifying those claims.
The amended complaint must not repeat his allegations involving the
denial of medical treatment in March of 2013. In addition, the Plaintiff
must not include two separate lists of Defendants and different,
repetitive statements of his claims. The amended complaint must list his
intended Defendants one time and must list his intended claims one
3
time. This will eliminate confusion over intended claims and Defendants
and will avoid any overlap with his pending litigation.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
The Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as a violation of Rule 8 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2.
The Plaintiff must file an amended complaint in compliance
with this court order on or before November 14, 2014. If the Plaintiff
fails to file an amended complaint by this deadline or ignores the court’s
specific directions, his case may be dismissed.
3.
The clerk of the court is to provide the Plaintiff with a blank
complaint form to assist him and reset a merit review deadline for
December 1, 2014.
ENTERED: October 20, 2014
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue Myerscough
_________________________
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?