James v. Varano et al

Filing 29

ORDER -IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Jamess motion for extension of time (Doc. 27) is GRANTED. 2. The Corrections Defendants motion to dismiss(Doc. 18) is DENIED AS MOOT. 3. The Medical Defendants motion to dismiss (Doc.20) is DENIED AS MOOT. 4. The original complaint is STRICKEN from the record.5. The Corrections Defendants and Medical Defendants may file with respect to the amended complaint (Doc. 28) a responsive pleading or dispositive motion within twenty (20) days of the date hereof. 20 27 18 Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 9/25/15. (sc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PARIS L. JAMES,
Plaintiff
vs.
DAVID VARANO, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 1:14-CV-01951
(Judge Kane)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Background
On October 8, 2014, Paris L. James, an inmate at the
State Correctional Institution at Coal Township, Pennsylvania
(“SCI-Coal Township”) filed a 51-page complaint consisting of 260
paragraphs against 16 named individual defendants and a total of
14 “John and Jane Doe” defendants, employed by the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections.

The complaint is brought pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The named individual defendants waived service
of the complaint.

Excluding the “John and Jane Doe” Defendants,

there are two groups of defendants each represented by counsel.
The first group consists of 14 defendants (David Varano, Kathryn
McCarthy, Lori Alleman, Thomas Mosier, Keith Tripp, Lieutenant
Masser, Sgt. Krzykowski, Sgt. Else, and Corrections Officers
Baker, Schoch, Rodriguez, Burrows, Novalis, and Kratz), which the
court will refer to as the “Corrections Defendants.”

The second

group consists of two defendants, physician assistants Brian Davis

and Jennifer Daya, who the court will refer to as the “Medical
Defendants.”
James claims that the Corrections Defendants on or about
October 12, 2012, and thereafter denied him adequate medical care
and subjected him to excessive force and retaliation because he
complained about the quality of the medical treatment he received
and the excessive force inflicted.

The Medical Defendants are

alleged to have failed to provide James with adequate medical care
and treatment for breathing difficulties and also it is alleged
they conspired with the Corrections Defendants in depriving
Restricted Housing Unit (“RHU”) inmates proper intake examinations
or access to health care and intentionally refused medical care to
reduce transportation costs from the RHU.
On December 12, 2014, a “Praecipe for Entry of
Appearance” was filed by the attorney representing the Corrections
Defendants attached to which was a proposed order referring to a
Corrections Defendants’ motion to dismiss and granting the motion.
(Doc. 18)

That document which appears on the docket as a motion

to dismiss by the Corrections Defendants was filed by the attorney
utilizing the court’s electronic case filing (ECF) system.

On the

same day the Clerk’s Office entered a docket annotation advising
counsel to refile Document 18 using the ECF event “Attorney
Appearance-Entry of Appearance.”

No action was taken by counsel

in response to that docket annotation and to this date no actual
motion appears on the docket from the Corrections Defendants.
2

In

light of the proposed order attached to the praecipe for entry of
appearance, the court will hereinafter refer to Document 18 as the
Corrections Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
On January 5, 2015, the Corrections Defendants filed a
motion for extension of time (Doc. 21) to file a brief in support
of the motion to dismiss.

The court on January 8, 2015, issued an

order (Doc. 22) granting that motion and extending the time until
February 4, 2015, for the filing of the Corrections Defendants’
brief in support.

On February 3, 2015, the Corrections Defendants

filed a supporting brief. (Doc. 26)

On March 2, 2015, James filed

a motion for extension of time until March 23, 2015, to file an
amended or supplemental response to the Corrections Defendants’
motion and specifically referenced Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure relating to the filing of amended or
supplemental pleadings.1 (Doc. 27)
As for the Medical Defendants, on December 30, 2012,
they filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted (Doc. 20) and on January 12, 2015, a
supporting brief. (Doc. 23)

On January 27, 2015, James filed a

motion for extension of time to respond to the Medical Defendants’
supporting brief.

(Doc. 24)

James also in that motion mentions

both the Medical Defendants and the Corrections Defendants and
1. The reasons for the requested extension of time were fully
stated in the motion obviating the need for James to file a
supporting brief. M.D.Pa. LR 7.5. The Corrections Defendants did
not file a brief in opposition. M.D.Pa. LR 7.6. Consequently,
the motion is deemed unopposed. Id.
3

requests an enlargement of time to consider whether to file an
amended or supplemental complaint.

Id.

James specifically

refers to the 21-day period under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(1) to file an amended complaint. Id.

The court issued an

order (Doc. 25) granting that motion on January 30, 2015 (docketed
February 2nd), and gave James an extension of time until March 23,
2015, to file a brief in opposition to the Medical Defendants’
supporting brief.2
On March 23, 2015, James filed a document entitled
“Amended Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
§1983" (Doc. 28) which was docketed by the Clerk of Court as a
“Proposed Document.”3

James has not filed briefs in opposition

to the pending motions to dismiss but in a letter which
accompanied the purported amended complaint stated in pertinent
part as follows: “[I]f there are any problems please contact
Plaintiff . . . Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is timely filed
pursuant to this Honorable Courts deadline of March 23, 2015, for
plaintiff to timely file response to Defendants (sic) Motion to

2.

The order, however, references Document No. 18.

3. The amended complaint which consists of 356 paragraphs (1)
eliminates the official capacity claims against the defendants;
(2) divides some of the 260 paragraphs of the original complaint
and renumbers them and adds additional paragraphs relating, inter
alia, to a conspiracy to violate James’ rights under the 8th
Amendment and the involvement of Defendant Verano; (3) corrects
the spelling of the names of several of the defendants; and (4)
sets forth the possible names of two of the “John and Jane Doe”
defendants but continues to refer to them as “John and Jane Doe”
defendants throughout the amended complaint.
4

Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”4
(Doc. 28, at 69).

He further indicates he served a copy of the

amended complaint on counsel for both the Corrections Defendants
and the Medical Defendants.

(Id. at 68.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) states in
pertinent part as follows:
(a) Amendments Before Trial.
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may
amend its pleading once as a matter of course
within:
(A)

21 days after serving it, or

(B)

if the pleading is one to which a
responsive pleading is required, 21 days
after service of a responsive pleading or
21 days after the service of a motion under
Rule 12(b) . . . , whichever is earlier.

(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party
may amend its pleading only with the opposing
party’s written consent or the court’s leave.
The court should freely give leave when justice
so requires.
Although the 21-days had elapsed when James filed his motion for
extension of time on March 2, 2015, in light of the procedural
history of this case and no action by either the Corrections
Defendants nor the Medical Defendants to strike the proposed
amended complaint or oppose his March 2nd motion for extension of
time (Doc. 27), the court concludes that justice requires that the

4. It appears that James was of the impression that based on the
court granting him an extension of time until March 23, 2015, he
also could file an amended complaint by that date
5

motion be granted and the proposed amended complaint be accepted
as appropriately filed. Furthermore, it is generally recognized
that when an amended complaint is filed, it supersedes the
original complaint.

Consequently, the pending motions to dismiss

filed by the Corrections Defendants and Medical Defendants will be
denied as moot and the original complaint stricken from the
record.
AND, NOW, THEREFORE, this 25th day of September, 2015,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

James’s motion for extension of time (Doc. 27) is

GRANTED.
2. The Corrections Defendants’ motion to dismiss
(Doc. 18) is DENIED AS MOOT.
3. The Medical Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc.
20) is DENIED AS MOOT.
4.

The original complaint is STRICKEN from the record.

5.

The Corrections Defendants and Medical Defendants

may file with respect to the amended complaint (Doc. 28)
a responsive pleading or dispositive motion within
twenty (20) days of the date hereof.

S/ Yvette Kane
Yvette Kane
United States District Judge

6