Sattlefield v. Office of Personnel Managment
ORDER denying at this time motion to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for service at government's expense. Further, the Court DIRECTS plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before November 17, 2016. Please see Order for details. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 10/17/16. (klh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT, GLORIA SILVER
MATHEW MCISAAC, and KARIN
HERNDON, District Judge:
On September 2, 2106, Madelaine Sattlefied filed a pro se civil rights suit
against the United States Office of Personel [sic] Management (Doc. 1). Along with
her complaint, she filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, a motion
for recruitment of counsel and a motion for service of process at government
expense (Docs. 2, 3 & 4). On September 19, 2016, the Court denied with leave to
refile plaintiff’s motions and directed her to file an amended complaint detailing
facts as to her claims (Doc. 5). On October 7, 2016, ignoring the Court’s directive
to her, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Gloria Silver, Mathew
McIsaac and Karin Buckhaltor as defendants (Doc. 6) but not clarifying what her
lawsuit is about.
The Court notes that plaintiff did not separately renew her
motions to proceed without prepaying fees and costs, recruitment of counsel and
for service at government expense. However, the Court construes the amended
complaint as containing renewed motions to proceed without prepaying fees and
for service at the government expense. The Court does not construe the amended
complaint as containing the motion for recruitment of counsel as the amended
complaint does not contain any allegations of her efforts to find a lawyer.
Under the PLRA, the Court must screen any indigent’s complaint (those
filed by prisoners and non-prisoners alike) and dismiss the complaint if (a) the
allegation of poverty is untrue, (b) the action is frivolous or malicious, (c) the
action fails to state a claim upon which can be granted, or (d) the action seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
Again, the Court finds that Sattelfield’s pleadings fall short of what is
required and that that her motion does not survive § 1915(e)(2) review. As with
the previous complaint, the Court cannot determine precisely what Sattelfield’s
claims are against the United States Office of Personnel and the individual
Her amended complaint is “light” on the details. She does not
describe with any detail the “who, what, when and how” of her cause of action to
put defendants on notice of the allegations against them.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Sattlefield’s motions to
proceed in forma pauperis and for service at government expense. The Court
ALLOWS Sattlefield up to and including November 17, 2016 to file another
amended complaint that provides details of the facts of her claims against
defendants. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the Court dismissing
her case for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 17th day of October, 2016.
by Judge David
United States District Judge
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?