Sattlefield v. Office of Personnel Managment

Filing 7

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)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS MADELAINE SATTLEFIELD, Plaintiff, No. 16-1003-DRH vs. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, GLORIA SILVER MATHEW MCISAAC, and KARIN BUCKHALTOR, Defendants. ORDER 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. § 1915(e)(2). 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 defendants. 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. Digitally signed by Judge David R. Herndon Date: 2016.10.17 13:37:51 -05'00' 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?