Lucas v Delaney, et al

Filing 65

ORDER striking 63 Amended Complaint and 64 MOTION Declaratory Judgment filed by Lee Lucas. The defendants currently represented by counsel be served with the Plaintiff's 35 Motion for Declaratory Judgment by having the clerk of court send a notice of electronic filing (NEF), with a link to the motion, to the defendants counsel of record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 4/14/2015. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LEE LUCAS (#338382)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

N. BURL CAIN, ET AL

NUMBER 12-791-JWD-SCR

ORDER STRIKING AMENDED COMPLAINT
and
ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
and
ORDER FOR SERVICE
On April 13, 2015, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
without

leave

of

court

do

so.

Record

document

number

63.

Plaintiff previously filed the same Amended Complaint, with leave
of court, on February 6, 2015.1

The difference between the two is

that attached to the Amended Complaint filed on February 6, 2015 is
a one page letter/note to Judy Lofton dated July 30, 2014, a July
24, 2014, Inmate Funds Withdrawal Request form, and a one page
August 15, 2014 letter/note to the clerk of this court.2

These

three documents are not attached to the April 13 Amended Complaint.
There

is

no

Complaints.

substantive

difference

between

the

two

Amended

All of the remaining defendants have been served with

1

Record document number 34, Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint; record document number 42, Ruling on Motion for Leave to
File Amended Complaint; record document number 43, Amended
Complaint.
2

Record document numbers 43-2.

the February 6 Amended Complaint.3

There is no apparent reason to

re-file the February 6 Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment, record document
number 64, is substantively the same as the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Declaratory Judgment filed on August 18, 2014, record document
number 35.

That motion was treated as another motion for leave to

amend and was granted.4

There is no apparent reason to file the

Plaintiff’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment again.
The August 18 Plaintiff’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment was
filed before the other defendants filed their Answer on January 23,
2015, which was before the court granted the motion on February 6,
Defendant Achord was served with the August 18 motion.5

2015.

But

there is no indication that any of the other defendants were served
with the August 18 Plaintiff’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment.
Therefore;
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and the
Plaintiff’s

Motion

for

Declaratory

Judgment

(record

document

numbers 63 and 64), both filed on April 13, 2015, are stricken.
IT

IS

FURTHER

ORDERED

that

the

defendants

currently

3

Defendant Bobby Achord was served on March 18, 2015. Record
document number 57. The other defendants were served with the
February 6 Amended Complaint via CM/ECF, the court’s electronic
filing system, on the date the Amended Complaint was filed. It
does not appear that any defendant has filed an answer to the
Amended Complaint.
4

Record document number 42, Ruling on Motion for Declaratory
Judgment.
5

Record document number 44, Order for
document number 57, Process Receipt and Return.

Service;

record

represented by counsel be served with the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Declaratory Judgment (record document number 35) by having the
clerk of court send a notice of electronic filing (NEF), with a
link to the motion, to the defendants’ counsel of record.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, April 14, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE