Bailey v. Religious Accomodation Committe, et al.

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the motion to stay (Doc. 10.), is GRANTED, in part, as follows: Proceedings in this case are STAYED until October 12, 2015, and the plaintiff is directed to file a single comprehensive amended complaint. The pl aintiff shall file this amended complaint on or before October 12, 2015. The defendants motion to sever (Doc. 12.), is DISMISSED without prejudice to renewal upon receipt of a single updated comprehensive amended complaint from Bailey. If Bailey decl ines to file such an amended complaint, we will then entertain a request to reinstate this motion to sever, and we will conduct a screening review of his claims as stated in this complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on September 11, 2015. (kjn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEMETRIUS BAILEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION
COMMITTEE, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 3:14-CV-1776
(Judge Kosik)

(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM ORDER1
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
This case, which comes before us for further consideration of a motion to stay
and a motion to sever, (Docs. 10 and 12.) presents a cautionary tale regarding the
perils of multi-plaintiff pro se inmate litigation. This case began its life as Bailey v.
Wetzel,3:13-CV-2680, a lawsuit purportedly brought by inmate Bailey, a fellow
prisoner, Jeffrey Turner, and others alleging violations of inmates’ federal
constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as a violation

The parties are advised that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the district court
has orally referred the above-captioned case to the undersigned for pre-trial
management, resolution of non-dispositive motions, and preparation of reports and
recommendations on potentially dispositive matters.
1

of his religious rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3000cc et seq.
This underlying litigation was marked by confusion, with inmate plaintiff,
Jeffrey Turner, claiming that he was initially named as a plaintiff in this lawsuit,
“without his knowledge, consent and requisite signature.” In an effort to create order
out of this chaos stemming from Bailey’s initial filings this court has permitted
inmates Bailey and Turner to pursue separate complaints, and ordered an amended
complaint filed by Bailey in Bailey v. Wetzel,3:13-CV-2680 to be lodged as an initial
complaint in this case. Unfortunately Bailey’s complaint conflates claims, parties and
issues in a way which defies easy understanding or description. (Doc. 1.) Indeed, in
our view, a number of these claims may be subject to summary dismissal. The
confusing nature of the claims now being articulated by Bailey, in turn, led the
defendants to seek a stay of proceedings, and to sever claims and parties. (Docs 10
and 12.)
We believe that all parties and the court would benefit from a more
comprehensible and orderly presentation of these claims.

Accordingly, IT IS

ORDERED that the motion to stay (Doc. 10.), is GRANTED, in part, as follows:
Proceedings in this case are STAYED until October 12, 2015, and the plaintiff
is directed to file a single comprehensive amended complaint in this case embracing

-2-

all claims that he wishes to pursue both in this litigation, as well as claims he formerly
sought to pursue in Bailey v. Wetzel, 3:13-CV-2680. However, we instruct the
plaintiff that this “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). 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 “a 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 “concise, 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 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
-3-

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). The
plaintiff shall file this amended complaint on or before October 12, 2015.
The defendants’ motion to sever (Doc. 12.), is DISMISSED without prejudice
to renewal upon receipt of a single updated comprehensive amended complaint from
Bailey. If Bailey declines to file such an amended complaint, we will then entertain
a request to reinstate this motion to sever, and we will conduct a screening review of
his claims as stated in this complaint.
So ordered this 11th day of September 2015.
S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

-4-