DiPietro v. The Department of Corrections and Its Employees Listed Herein et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM re Complaint 1 and mtn for Leave to Proceed ifp 3 (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 8/24/15. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NICODEMO DiPIETRO,
Plaintiff
vs.
THE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS & ITS EMPLOYEES
LISTED HEREIN, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:CV-15-1137
(Judge Caldwell)

MEMORANDUM

Nicodemo DiPietro initiated this action on June 1, 2015, naming
approximately thirty Department of Corrections (DOC) employees as defendants. (Doc.
1, Compl.) The court has not yet screened DiPietro’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915, nor made a decision about service on defendants. We are considering DiPietro’s
motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 9, Mot. to Amend).
The filing of an Amended Complaint is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a):
(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 service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f),
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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Based on the procedural history of this case, DiPietro may file an
amended complaint as a matter of course.
If DiPietro decides to file an amended complaint, he is advised that it must
contain the same docket number as the instant action and should be labeled “Amended
Complaint.” In addition, the "amended complaint must be complete in all respects. It
must be a new pleading which stands by itself as an adequate complaint without
reference to the complaint already filed." Young v. Keohane, 809 F. Supp. 1185, 1198
(M.D. Pa. 1992). DiPietro is advised that any amended complaint he may file supersedes
the original complaint and must be “retyped or reprinted so that it will be complete in itself
including exhibits.” M.D. Pa. LR 15.1. Consequently, all causes of action alleged in the
original complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint are waived.
DiPietro is also advised that his amended complaint must be concise and
direct. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d). Each allegation must be set forth in an individually
numbered paragraphs in short, concise and simple statements. Id. The allegations
should be specific enough as to time and place, and should identify the specific person or
persons responsible for the deprivation of his constitutional rights and what each
individual did that led to deprivation of his rights. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676,
129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). DiPietro must also specify the relief he
seeks with regard to each claim.

-2-

DiPietro’s failure to file an appropriate amended complaint within the
required time will result in this action proceeding on his original complaint (Doc. 1).
An appropriate order follows.

/s/ William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge

Date: August 24, 2015

-3-