Iverson (ID 6007695) v. Bell et al

Filing 47

ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Correctly Designated Second Amended Complaint 35 is denied without prejudice. Signed by U.S. District Judge Sam A. Crow on 05/19/17. Mailed to pro se party Montee Ray Iverson by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

MONTEE RAY IVERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 16-3102-SAC-DJW

SAM CLINE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is
currently incarcerated at the El Dorado Correctional Facility in El Dorado, Kansas (“EDCF”).
The Court screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 33) (“SAC”) pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. (Doc. 32.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s retaliation claim in Count I, and
ordered a Martinez Report for Counts II and III. Id. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment (Doc. 34), arguing that he erroneously titled Doc. 33 as his “Second Amended
Complaint,” when in actuality it was only his First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff also disagreed
with the Court’s findings and rulings regarding his retaliation claim and reargued some of his
allegations of retaliation. The Court denied the Motion to Alter or Amend, and found that
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint at Doc. 33 was properly designated as his Second
Amended Complaint. (Doc. 43.) This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File Correctly Designated Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 35). Attached to the
motion is a proposed amended complaint that Plaintiff again improperly designates as his
“Second Amended Complaint.” The Court denies the motion for leave to amend.

1

Plaintiff moves for leave to amend, again incorrectly designating this as his “Second
Amended Complaint,” and without submitting it on the Court-approved form. See D. Kan.
Rule 9.1(a) (“[C]ivil rights complaints by prisoners under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . . . must be on forms
approved by the court. Upon request, the clerk of court will supply forms without charge.”). His
proposed amended complaint reargues his retaliation claim that the Court previously dismissed,
makes conclusory allegations of a conspiracy, adds multiple defendants without allegations of
personal involvement, and reasserts the claims the Court has already found in need of a Martinez
Report. For these reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend. This denial is
without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling a motion for leave to amend after he has received the
Martinez Report.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to File Correctly Designated Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 35) is denied without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated in Topeka, Kansas, on this 19th day of May, 2017.

s/ Sam A. Crow
Sam A. Crow
U. S. Senior District Judge

2