Conner v. Warden FCI Schuylkill et al
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 6 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by Richie Conner Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 3/12/15. (jam)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WARDEN FCI SCHUYLKILL, et al.,
CIVIL NO. 3:CV-15-0004
On December 28, 2014, Richie Conner, an inmate formerly housed at FCI
Schuylkill, in Minersville, Pennsylvania, alleging that the named defendants were
deliberately indifferent in diagnosing and treating his bladder cancer. (Doc. 1,
Compl.) Named as defendants are the following individuals who work at FCI
Schuylkill: Warden Howard Hufford; Unit Manager Petruzzi, Case Manager Light;
Counselor Kranzel, Counselor Schaeffer, Unit Secretary Lucas, and Physician
Assistant Ortiz. (Id.) Mr. Conner has paid the full filing fee in this matter. Presently
before the court is Mr. Conner’s motion to file an amended complaint and proposed
amended complaint. (Docs. 6 and 7.)
For the reasons that follow, Mr. Conner’s motion to amend will be granted
and he will be directed to file an all-inclusive amended complaint.
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, Mr. Conner may file an
amended complaint as a matter of right. The court has reviewed Mr. Conner’s “First
Amended Complaint”. (Doc. 7, Proposed First Am. Compl.) Mr. Conner clearly
seeks to incorporate by reference claims raised in his original complaint. He cannot
do so. Thus, for the sake of clarity and out of abundance of care of this pro se
litigant, the Mr. Conner will be directed to file an all-inclusive amended complaint.
Mr. Conner is cautioned that his amended complaint 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). In particular, Mr. Conner is advised that the amended complaint will
supercede 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 complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint will
Mr. Conner’s 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 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). He also shall specify the relief he seeks
with regard to each claim and defendant. Failure to file a completely new amended
complaint will result in the Court proceeding in this matter based on the original
complaint. Finally, Mr. Conner is cautioned that the amended complaint, if
handwritten, must be legible.
An appropriate Order follows.
/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. RICHARD CAPUTO
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?