TORRES v. KNIGHT et al

Filing 40

Entry Dismissing "Amended Claim" of August 30, 2017, and Directing Filing of Second Amended Complaint - If a second amended complaint is not filed by October 6, 2017, the original complaint filed May 9, 2017, will become the operative com plaint. Torres may find it helpful to use the same form complaint he used when he initiated this action. The clerk is directed to send Torres a blank complaint form with his copy of this Entry. See entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/15/2017. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff) (MEJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
RAFAEL R. TORRES,
Plaintiff,
v.
C.A. PENFOLD, PAUL PRULHIERE,
ROACH LT.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-01522-TWP-DML

Entry Dismissing “Amended Claim” of August 30, 2017,
and Directing Filing of Second Amended Complaint
Plaintiff Rafael Torres commenced this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on May 9, 2017.
Following screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the complaint was dismissed against
proposed defendant Stanley Knight, Superintendent of the Pendleton Correctional Facility,
because no personal involvement in the actions giving rise to the lawsuit was alleged. The case
was allowed to proceed against the other three named defendants.
Torres sought reconsideration, seeking to reinstate his claim against Knight and add a claim
against Assistant Superintendent Kevin Hartzell on the grounds that each, because of their
management involvement, had to have been knowledgeable about Torres’ placement within the
prison. That placement occurred after Torres informed defendants that he would be in danger.
Torres asserts that he was, in fact, beaten by other inmates. The Court granted reconsideration and
directed Torres to file an amended complaint that contained all of his claims.
On August 30, 2017, Torres filed an “amended claim.” Dkt. 35. This filing describes why
Torres believes he has a claim against Knight and Hartzell, and the other defendants, but otherwise
does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The proposed complaint is not a “short and plain”

statement of his claims that shows entitlement to relief, and nowhere does it contain a demand for
relief. At fifteen pages, the document is more a brief on the merits than an amended complaint.
Torres shall have through October 6, 2017, in which to file a second amended complaint
that complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). If filed, it will be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Following screening, if the second amended complaint is allowed to proceed, it will supersede and
replace the original complaint. If a second amended complaint is not filed by October 6, 2017, the
original complaint filed May 9, 2017, will become the operative complaint.
Torres may find it helpful to use the same form complaint he used when he initiated this
action. The clerk is directed to send Torres a blank complaint form with his copy of this Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 9/15/2017

Distribution:
Rafael R. Torres
7939 Carlton Arms Rd. Apt. F
Indianapolis, IN 46256
Electronically Registered Counsel