Chapman v. Douglas County Official's et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - On the court's own motion, the court will give Plaintiff one final opportunity to file an amended complaint in accordance with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must file a second amended complaint by May 13, 2013. Plaintiff's second amended complaint must: (1) clearly set forth the name of each defendant; (2) clearly set forth a short and plain statement of the claims against each defendant; (3) state claims in numbered para graphs limited to a single set of circumstances; and (4) set forth each legal theory and how it relates to each defendant. Plaintiff's second amended complaint must restate the allegations of his Complaint and Amended Complaint, plus any new allegations. Failure to consolidate all claims into one document may result in the abandonment of claims. The court will dismiss this matter without further notice if Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint or files a second amended com plaint that does not comply with the general rules of pleading. The clerk's office is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this matter: May 13, 2013: Check for second amended complaint and dismiss if none filed or fails to comply with general pleading requirements. Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BILLIE JOE CHAPMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOUGLAS COUNTY OFFICIALS,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:12CV370

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. Plaintiff filed his Complaint
and Brief in Support of Complaint on October 18, 2012. (Filing Nos. 1 and 2.) At the
direction of the court, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on January 28, 2013.
(Filing No. 14.) The court ordered Plaintiff to file the Amended Complaint because it
determined that the allegations in his original Complaint were “unorganized and
rambling, Plaintiff fail[ed] to clearly set forth who the Defendants are, and he utterly
fail[ed] to identify which allegations and legal theories relate to each Defendant.”
(Filing No. 13 at CM/ECF p. 3.) Thus, per the court’s order, Plaintiff was to file an
amended complaint that complied with the general rules of pleading set forth in Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10.
The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and it also fails
to comply with the general rules of pleading. Specifically, the court cannot determine
who Plaintiff intends to name as Defendants in this matter. For example, Plaintiff
named the following Defendant in the caption of the Amended Complaint: “2) U.S.
MARSHAL’S OFFICE OMAHA, NE FOR OFC TRAVIS JARZYNKA 12/14/2010.”
(Filing No. 14 at CM/ECF p. 1.) It is unclear from the caption of the Amended
Complaint and the body of the Amended Complaint whether Plaintiff intended to name
both the marshal’s service and Travis Jarzynka as defendants, or only one or the other.
The same is true for other agencies and individuals listed in the caption of the Amended
Complaint. (See id. (“DOUGLAS COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT. FOR E. JONES ON

12/14/2010” and “DOUGLAS COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE FOR []
YVONNE D. SOSA GAYTON, SCOTT SLADEK, AND TIM BURNS”).)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
On the court’s own motion, the court will give Plaintiff one final
opportunity to file an amended complaint in accordance with Rules 8 and 10 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must file a second amended complaint by
May 13, 2013. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint must: (1) clearly set forth the
name of each defendant; (2) clearly set forth a short and plain statement of the claims
against each defendant; (3) state claims in numbered paragraphs limited to a single set
of circumstances; and (4) set forth each legal theory and how it relates to each
defendant.
2.
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint must restate the allegations of his
Complaint and Amended Complaint, plus any new allegations. Failure to
consolidate all claims into one document may result in the abandonment of
claims.
3.
The court will dismiss this matter without further notice if Plaintiff fails
to file a second amended complaint or files a second amended complaint that does not
comply with the general rules of pleading.
4.
The clerk’s office is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in
this matter: May 13, 2013: Check for second amended complaint and dismiss if none
filed or fails to comply with general pleading requirements.
5.
The court reserves the right to conduct further review of Plaintiff’s claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) after Plaintiff addresses the matters set forth in this
Memorandum and Order.

2

6.
Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF
p. 1) is denied. The court cannot routinely appoint counsel in civil cases. In Davis v.
Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals explained
that “[i]ndigent civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed
counsel. . . . The trial court has broad discretion to decide whether both the plaintiff and
the court will benefit from the appointment of counsel . . . .” Id. (quotation and citation
omitted). No such benefit is apparent here. Thus, the request for the appointment of
counsel is denied without prejudice to reassertion.
DATED this 11th day of April, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve,
or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web
sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their
Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of
any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some
other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
3