Stallings v. Turner et al

Filing 9

Memorandum Opinion and Order: plaintiff's pending motions to amend his complaint are denied in part and granted in part as follows: The plaintiff's motions are denied to the extent they request emergency relief or a temporary restra ining order, but the plaintiff's motions are granted to the extent the plaintiff is permitted to file one consolidated amended complaint in this case within 30 days of the date of this order as set forth in the order. re 5 4 . Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 5/20/2016. (S,AL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Thomas Stallings,

Case No. 3:14-cv-2121
Plaintiff

v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER ADDRESSING THE
PLAINTIFF’S “EMERGENCY”
MOTIONS TO AMEND
(Doc. Nos. 4 and 5.)

Warden Neil Turner, et al.,
Defendants

Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at the North Central Correctional Complex (NCCC)
in Marion, Ohio.

He filed this pro se civil rights action on September 24, 2014, naming as

defendants NCCC Warden Neil Turner; the Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction Gary C. Mohr; two NCCC doctors, Drs. Wilson and Burkus; and an NCCC employee,
“Mrs. Shafer.” (See Doc. No. 1.)
The plaintiff alleges a litany of problems relating to the conditions of his treatment and
confinement in his complaint, but the only specific conduct he sets forth relates to an incident that
occurred on July 31, 2014. He and another inmate were outside playing with a prison dog when
the dog jumped on the plaintiff and bit the plaintiff’s penis, severely injuring him.

The plaintiff

yelled for help but medical staff did not “act under emergency measures” and afforded him
inadequate medical treatment for his pain and injuries.
substantial money damages and injunctive relief.

1

For this conduct, the plaintiff seeks

On November 6, 2014, the plaintiff filed an “emergency” motion to amend his conditions of
treatment and confinement complaint to add additional civil rights claims and to name multiple
additional defendants.

(Doc. No. 4.)

The plaintiff’s proposed amendment appears to allege that a

“Sgt. Hollycross” discriminated against him because he is black and gay in connection with incidents
unrelated to the incident he alleged in his original complaint. The plaintiff’s proposed amended
pleading, however, does not clearly set forth specific allegations of wrongdoing against the various
defendants the plaintiff appears to name, and it does not request any specific relief. Nor does the
pleading set forth a basis for awarding “emergency” relief.
On December 1, 2014, the plaintiff filed yet another “emergency petition for amendment”
of his complaint, apparently seeking to add even more claims and even more defendants in the case.
(Doc. No. 5.)

In this proposed amended pleading, the plaintiff appears to allege he was refused

medical care when he went to the prison’s medical unit on November 22, 2014, and that he was
subjected to excessive force by multiple defendants thereafter. This second, proposed amendment
also does not clearly set forth specific allegations of wrongdoing against all of the defendants the
plaintiff names, and it does not seek any particular relief.

Although the plaintiff has labeled this

petition as an “Emergency Petition for Amendment” and a “Motion for TPO and TRO,” the
plaintiff has not set forth facts, or requested relief, that might warrant the imposition of such
extraordinary remedies.
A plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that a temporary restraining order is warranted
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). See Jane Doe v. Barron, 92 F. Supp.2d 694, 695 (S.D. Ohio 1999).

In

determining whether to issue a TRO, a court must examine and weigh four factors: (1) whether the
moving party has shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the moving party
will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued; (3) whether the issuance of the injunction
would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by
issuing the injunction.

Overstreet v. Lexington–Fayette Urban County Government, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th
2

Cir. 2002); McPherson v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass'n, 119 F.3d 453, 459 (6th Cir. 1997) (en banc ).
Simply, the plaintiff has not demonstrated that any of the pertinent factors weigh in favor of
injunctive relief, and I cannot conclude they weigh in favor of such relief on the basis of the
plaintiff’s pleadings alone.

In particular, I do not find the plaintiff has demonstrated a strong

likelihood of success on the merits or that he would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
injunctive relief. Accordingly, I am denying the plaintiff’s pending motions (Doc. Nos. 4 and 5) to
the extent they purport to seek “emergency” relief, including a TRO.
I will, however, allow the plaintiff to amend his pleading in accordance with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) allows a plaintiff to amend his pleading once as a
matter of course before a responsive pleading is served.

Therefore, the plaintiff is permitted to file

one consolidated amended complaint in this case within thirty days of the date of this order which
clearly sets forth all of the claims he seeks to assert in this case against all of the defendants he seeks
to sue.

This will afford the plaintiff the opportunity to amend his pleading as the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure permit but will not purport to require the defendants to parse through three,
separate and seemingly-unconnected pleadings of the plaintiff to attempt to discern the nature of the
plaintiff’s civil rights claims against them. Although a pro se pleading is not held to the same
standard as a pleading drafted by a lawyer, a pro se litigant is still required to meet basic pleading
requirements. That is, a pro se complaint must give the defendants fair notice of what the plaintiff's
claims are and the grounds upon which they rest.

Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 528 F.3d

426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008). Neither courts nor defendants “are obligated to search through” a
plaintiff’s complaint and its various supplements “in order glean a clear and succinct statement of
[each of the plaintiff’s claims] for relief.”

Rather, it is a plaintiff’s responsibility – pro se or

otherwise – “to edit and organize his claims and supporting allegations into a manageable format.”
See Hollon v. Eastern Ky. Correctional Complex, No. 10–CV–177–KSF, 2010 WL 2924091, at *2

3

(E.D.Ky. July 22, 2010); Laster v. Pramstaller, No. 08–CV–10898, 2008 WL 1901250, at *2 (E.D.
Mich. April 25, 2008).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the plaintiff’s pending motions to amend his
complaint are denied in part and granted in part as follows: The plaintiff’s motions are denied to
the extent they request emergency relief or a temporary restraining order, but the plaintiff’s motions
are granted to the extent the plaintiff is permitted to file one consolidated amended complaint in this
case within thirty (30) days of the date of this order clearly setting forth and identifying: (1) all of
the defendants whom the defendant is suing in the case; (2) the legal claims and legal basis for all
claims he asserts; and (3) the factual basis for each claim asserted against each defendant.
plaintiff files this amended pleading, no further amendments will be allowed.
So Ordered.

s/Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge

4

Once the