Brown v. Dept. of Health & Human Svs. et al

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Plaintiff must file an amended complaint within 30 days that identifies each defendant by name and states all of his claims (and any supporting factual allegations) against that defendant. Failure to do so will result in th e court dismissing this action without prejudice and without further notice for failure to prosecute it. Plaintiff is ordered not to file any other amended pleadings or supplements to his pleadings, aside from the one contemplated in the preceding paragraph, without first obtaining leave of the court as required by Rule 15 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 15.1 of the local rules of this court. Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Filing No. 30) is denied. In lig ht of the foregoing, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Filing No. 18) and Motions to Amend Complaint (Filing Nos. 32 and 35), and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Filing No. 23) are denied as moot. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CORNELIUS BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN
SVS., TI LINN BOUER, Facility
Operating Officer, CHRIS BO
SIMMONS, Assoc. Facility Officer,
JOHN KROLL, Director of Nursing,
LORI STRONG, Asst. Unit
Supervisor, DIANNA MASTNY,
Unit Supervisor, and MATTHEW
POKORNY, Patient,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:14CV298

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court for case management. Since filing a Complaint
on September 30, 2014, Plaintiff Cornelius Brown has filed at least nine pleadings
and motions seeking to supplement his Complaint. Most recently, Plaintiff filed two
unopposed motions to amend his Complaint on March 9, 2015, and March 18, 2015.
(See Filing Nos. 32 and 35.) The court will no longer permit the piecemeal filing of
supplemental pleadings in this case.
A.

Leave to Amend

The court will give Plaintiff leave to file one amended complaint that identifies
each defendant by name and states all of his claims (and any supporting factual
allegations) against that defendant. Plaintiff is ordered not to file any other amended
pleadings or supplements to his pleadings, aside from the one contemplated in the
preceding sentence, without first obtaining leave of the court as required by Rule

15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 15.1 of the local rules of this
court.
B.

Motion to Appoint Counsel

Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel. (Filing No. 30.) 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. (internal citation and quotation marks
omitted). No such benefit is apparent here at this time. Thus, the request for the
appointment of counsel will be denied without prejudice to reassertion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff must file an amended complaint within 30 days that identifies
each defendant by name and states all of his claims (and any supporting factual
allegations) against that defendant. Failure to do so will result in the court dismissing
this action without prejudice and without further notice for failure to prosecute it.
2.
Plaintiff is ordered not to file any other amended pleadings or
supplements to his pleadings, aside from the one contemplated in the preceding
paragraph, without first obtaining leave of the court as required by Rule 15(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 15.1 of the local rules of this court.
3.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Filing No. 30) is denied.

2

4.
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Filing
No. 18) and Motions to Amend Complaint (Filing Nos. 32 and 35), and Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Filing No. 23) are denied as moot.
DATED this 7th day of April, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
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