Thomas v. Triplett et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying 38 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 39 Motion for appointment of counsel. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 10/20/16. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:15-cv-400-FDW
WILLIAM THOMAS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FNU TRIPLETT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint,
(Doc. No. 38), and on Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, (Doc. No. 39).
Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint to add a claim for $500,000 in compensatory
damages and a claim for $350,000 in punitive damages. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied, first,
because he has not attached a proper proposed amended complaint. In order to amend his
complaint, Plaintiff may not simply add allegations to his already existing complaint as he has
done here. Rather, he must submit a proposed amended complaint that contains all claims he
intends to bring in this action against all defendants he intends to sue. That is, a plaintiff may not
amend his complaint in piecemeal fashion.
In any event, as Defendants point out in their response, Plaintiff requests leave to obtain
compensatory and punitive damages in his motion to amend, but Plaintiff already requested
compensatory and punitive damages in his original Complaint filed on August 31, 2015, in an
amount to be determined by the jury. Thus, Plaintiff’s pending motion to amend is frivolous and
will be denied.
Next, as to Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, the motion is denied for the same
1

reasons the Court denied Plaintiff’s prior motion to appoint counsel. See (Doc. No. 10).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint, (Doc. No. 38), and Plaintiff’s Motion for
Appointment of Counsel, (Doc. No. 39), are DENIED.

2