Best v. A.C.S. et al

Filing 50

OPINION AND ORDER: On April 5, 2013, pro se plaintiff Bishop Frank Best filed an amended complaint pursuant to the Courts March 21, 2013 Order. After reviewing the amended complaint, the Court believes that Best's filing is more properly underst ood as a supplemental pleading brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d). Thus, if defendants move to dismiss Best's case, they should address the October 22, 2012 complaint, (Docket Number (Doc. No.) 2), and any pleadings in the April 5, 2013 filing, (Doc No. 49), that supplement the complaint. The Clerk of Court is directed to alter Doc. No. 49 to reflect that it is a Supplemental Pleading, and not an Amended Complaint. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 4/8/2013) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (tro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
Bishop Frank BEST,
Plaintiff,
-against-

4/8/2013

12-CV-07874 (RJS)(SN)
OPINION AND ORDER

A.C.S., et al.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
SARAH NETBURN, United States Magistrate Judge:
On April 5, 2013, pro se plaintiff Bishop Frank Best filed an amended complaint
pursuant to the Court’s March 21, 2013 Order. After reviewing the amended complaint, the
Court believes that Best’s filing is more properly understood as a supplemental pleading brought
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d). Thus, if defendants move to dismiss Best’s
case, they should address the October 22, 2012 complaint, (Docket Number (“Doc. No.”) 2), and
any pleadings in the April 5, 2013 filing, (Doc No. 49), that supplement the complaint.
The Clerk of Court is directed to alter Doc. No. 49 to reflect that it is a Supplemental
Pleading, and not an Amended Complaint.
SO ORDERED.

DATED:

New York, New York
April 8, 2013

cc:

Bishop Frank Best
131-19 Farmers Blvd
Queens, NY 11434