Mitchell v. Mallick et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Jason Mitchell, 4 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by Jason Mitchell Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 10/15/15. (jam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JASON MITCHELL,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff
v.
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
MALLICK, et al.,
Defendants

CIVIL NO. 3:CV-15-1958
(Judge Caputo)

MEMORANDUM
Jason Mitchell, an inmate housed at the Lackawanna County Prison (LCP), initiated
this action on October 1, 2015, naming thirteen LCP employees as defendants. (Doc. 1,
Compl.) The court has neither screened Mr. Mitchell’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915, nor made a decision about service on defendants. Presently before the court is Mr.
Mitchell’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) and to file an amended
complaint. (Doc. 5, 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, Mr. Mitchell may file an
amended complaint as a matter of course. His motion for leave to proceed informa
pauperis will also be granted.
If Mr. Mitchell 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).
Mr. Mitchell 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. His amended complaint may not incorporate by reference his
original complaint. Consequently, all causes of action alleged in the original complaint
which are not alleged in the amended complaint are waived.
Mr. Mitchell 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). Mr. Mitchell must also specify the relief he seeks with regard to
each claim. Finally, Mr. Mitchell is cautioned that his amended complaint must be legible.
-2-

If printing his amended complaint, he should double space his text and write as clearly as
possible. Illegible document will be returned without any action being taken on them.
Mr. Mitchell’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/ A. Richard Caputo
A. RICHARD CAPUTO
United States District Judge
Date: October 15, 2015

-3-