Barlow, et al v. Ebbert et al

Filing 115

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - In order to add some clarity and coherence to this litigation, with respect to Raileys motion for injunctive relief, (Doc. 109 ), motion to amend his complaint, (Doc. 112 ) and motion to supplement his complaint, (Doc. 113 ) IT IS ORDERED that these motions are GRANTED, in part, in that IT IS ORDERED that on or before March 6, 2019, the pltf shall file a single consolidated complaint in this case encompassing all of his claims for injunctive relief and damages. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pltfs motion for preservation of evidence (Doc. 86 ) is DENIED without prejudice to renewal once the plaintiff files the single comprehensive complaint called for by this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on February 6, 2019. (kjn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NATHAN RAILEY,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN DAVID EBBERT, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil No. 1:18-CV-716

(Judge Rambo)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The background of this order is as follows:
The plaintiff is a federal prisoner who is proceeding pro se. This case, which
was initially jointly bought by a host of inmates, has now been severed into separate
lawsuits, and for the plaintiff this action has created some procedural confusion.
Presently, Railey does not have a single, comprehensive complaint docketed with the
court. Instead, Railey has filed a motion for injunctive relief, (Doc. 109), a motion to
amend his complaint, (Doc. 112) and a motion to supplement his complaint, (Doc.
113), each of which raises separate issues and concerns. Railey has also filed a motion
to preserve evidence, (Doc. 86) although it is difficult for the defendants to understand
what evidence needs to be preserved until Railey files a single, coherent statement of
his claims.

1

In order to add some clarity and coherence to this litigation, with respect to
Railey’s motion for injunctive relief, (Doc. 109), motion to amend his complaint,
(Doc. 112) and motion to supplement his complaint, (Doc. 113) IT IS ORDERED that
these motions are GRANTED, in part, in that IT IS ORDERED that on or before
March 6, 2019, the plaintiff shall file a single consolidated complaint in this case
encompassing all of his claims for injunctive relief and damages. However, we
instruct the plaintiff that this Aamended 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). See e.g., Biggins v. Danberg, No. 10-732, 2012 WL 37132 (D.Del.
Jan. 6, 2012); Quirindongo v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 10-1742, 2011 WL
2456624 (M.D. Pa. June 16, 2011). Therefore, in amending this complaint, the
plaintiff=s amended complaint must recite factual allegations which are sufficient to
raise the plaintiff=s claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation, contain
Aa short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,@
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), set forth in averments that are Aconcise, and direct,@ Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(e)(1), and stated in separately numbered paragraphs describing the date and
time of the events alleged, and identifying wherever possible the participants in the
acts about which the plaintiff complains. This complaint must be a new pleading
2

which stands by itself as an adequate complaint without reference to any other
pleading already filed. Young v. Keohane, 809 F. Supp. 1185, 1198 (M.D. Pa. 1992).
The complaint should set forth plaintiff's claims in short, concise and plain statements,
and in sequentially numbered paragraphs. It should name proper defendants, specify
the offending actions taken by a particular defendant, be signed, and indicate the
nature of the relief sought. Further, the claims set forth in the complaint should arise
out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and
they should contain a question of law or fact common to all defendants. The Court
further places the plaintiff on notice that failure to comply with this direction may
result in the dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The Court also notifies the plaintiff that, as a litigant who has sought leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, his complaint may also be subject to a screening review
by the Court to determine its legal sufficiency. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for preservation of
evidence (Doc. 86) is DENIED without prejudice to renewal once the plaintiff files
the single comprehensive complaint called for by this order.
SO ORDERED, this 6th day of February 2019.

/s/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
3