Kosiski v. Frakes et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint no later than November 10, 2016. Should Plaintiff fail to do so, this action will be dismissed without further notice. The clerk of court is directed to set a case management deadline using the following text: November 10, 2016: check for second amended complaint. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
EDWARD KOSISKI,
Plaintiff,
V.
SCOTT FRAKES, MICHAEL KENNY,
ROBERT HOUSTON, RANDY KOHL,
MICHAEL ROTHWELL, LARRY WAYNE,
BARBARA LEWEIN, FRED BRITTEN,
BRIAN GAGE, BRAD MCDONNELL,
MICHELLE CAPPS, EDWARD FABIEN,
UNKNOWN WEATHERSPOON, CURTIS
WEES, SHAWN SHERMAN, THOMAS
ENGLISH, TOM DAVIS, UNKNOWN
K IN L U N D , J A M E S E LLIN G E R ,
UNKNOWN LATKA, UNKNOWN
ARMKNECKT, UNKNOWN LEDUC,
CAMERON WHITE, LISA JONES,
STEPHANIE BRUHN, LAYNE GISSLER,
PAUL R ODR IGUEZ, UNKNOWN
PEARSON, AGNES STAIRS, BETH
GEIGER, AMANDA HOLMGREEN, ALAN
LEVINSON, AMBER GARCIA, ANTONI
HANIGAN, JOHN HILL, JASON
WORKMAN, BRANDY LOGSTON,
LARRY MURPHY, TAMMY JACKSON,
COLLETTE WAGONER, MICAELA
VANSKIVER WILLIAMS, ROSALYN
COTTON, Chair, REX RICHARD, Vice
Chair, RANDALL REHMEIER, Member,
TERESA BITTINGER, Member, VIRGIL
PATLON, Member, and ALL JOHN AND
JANE DOES KNOWN AND UNKNOWN,
Defendants.

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

8:16CV345

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Plaintiff instituted this action on July 13, 2016. (Filing No. 1.) Plaintiff was

subsequently granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing No. 11.) For the
reasons that follow, the court will require Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, or
face dismissal of this action.
DISCUSSION
The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and finds that the
Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule
8 requires that every complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and that “each allegation . . . be simple,
concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. A complaint must state enough to “give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quotation omitted). Although a pro se
plaintiff’s allegations should be liberally construed, pro se litigants must comply with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir.
1984) (“[P]ro se litigants are not excused from failing to comply with substantive and
procedural law”).
Plaintiff’s Complaint is 108 pages long and names forty-seven defendants. As
best the court can tell, Plaintiff maintains that his constitutional rights were violated
because he was unable to participate in rehabilitative programming while incarcerated.
Plaintiff may be asserting other claims as well, but this is not completely clear from
Plaintiff’s pleading.
Out of an abundance of caution, the court will grant Plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint that clearly and concisely sets forth his claims for relief. Plaintiff
should make certain that his amended complaint specifies how each named defendant
personally participated in any alleged unconstitutional conduct. Plaintiff is further
advised that his amended pleading will supersede, rather than supplement, his
Complaint.

2

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint no later than
November 10, 2016. Should Plaintiff fail to do so, this action will be dismissed
without further notice. The clerk of court is directed to set a case management
deadline using the following text: November 10, 2016: check for second amended
complaint.
DATED this 11th day of October, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

3