Taylor v. Vannoy et al

Filing 6

RULING: Plaintiffs action shall be dismissed, without prejudice, because of his failure to correct the deficiencies of which he was notified. The above-captioned proceeding be DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Plaintiffs pending 2 , 5 Motions are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 4/11/2017. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ROY LEON TAYLOR (#296063)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
DARREL VANNOY, ET AL.

NO. 16-859-JWD-RLB
RULING

In December, 2016, the pro se plaintiff, an inmate currently confined at Louisiana State
Penitentiary (“LSP”), Angola, Louisiana, filed this proceeding, apparently pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, complaining regarding the conditions of his confinement.
In his original Complaint, the plaintiff listed “Darrell Vannoy, et al Warden, LSP” and
“Louisiana Department of Safety & Corrections” as a defendants in the caption, and did not list
any person or entity as a defendant in section III of the Complaint. The plaintiff also did not pay
the Court’s filing fee or file a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
Pursuant to correspondence dated January 11, 2017 (R. Doc. 3), the Court directed the
plaintiff to amend his Complaint by listing the parties in the caption and in part III of the
Complaint exactly the same, within twenty-one (21) days and, within such time, to either pay the
Court’s filing fee or submit a properly completed Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with a
Statement of Account, certifying to the average six-month deposits and balance in his inmate
account(s). The Court also instructed the plaintiff not to use “et al” when listing the parties.
Copies of the pertinent forms and pages of the plaintiff’s Complaint were attached. The
referenced correspondence specifically advised the plaintiff that “failure to amend the pleadings
or provide the requested information or forms as indicated will result in the dismissal of your suit
by the Court without further notice.” Id.

A review of the record by the Court reflects that, despite notice and an opportunity to
appear, the plaintiff has failed to respond to respond to the Court’s directive to amend his
Complaint by listing the parties in the caption and in section III of the Complaint exactly the
same. The plaintiff has failed to identify with certainty who he is suing.
The plaintiff filed an amended Complaint; however, he has now listed “Darrel Vannoy, et
al,” “The Dep’t of Safety / Corrections, et al,” and “James Leblanc” as defendants in the caption,
but has listed “Darrel Vannoy, et al, Warden” and “James LeBlanc, et al” as defendants in Part
III of his amended Complaint. See R. Doc. 4. As such, there exists unnecessary confusion as to
who the plaintiff is naming as defendants in this matter, resulting from the plaintiff’s failure to
comply with the Court’s aforementioned directives. Therefore, the plaintiff’s action shall be
dismissed, without prejudice, because of his failure to correct the deficiencies of which he was
notified. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned proceeding be DISMISSED, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s pending Motions (R. Docs. 2 and 5)
are DENIED AS MOOT.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on April 11, 2017.

S

JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA