Goode v. Lackawanna County Prison et al

Filing 11

ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry), Granting Application to Proceed IFP, and DISMISSING the Complaint; Pltf is afforded until 3/4/16 to file a motion to reopen /proposed amended complaint which address the deficiencies of the original complaint; Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case; any appeal from this order is deemed frivolous and not in good faith. Signed by Honorable James M. Munley on 2/19/16. (sm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROBERT E. GOODE, SR.,

:
:
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
:
:
LACKAWANNA COUNTY PRISON, :
DR. ZALOGA,
:
:
Defendants :

CIVIL NO. 3:16-cv-0183

(Judge Munley)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ORDER
AND NOW, to wit, this 19th day of February 2016, upon consideration of
plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) and in accordance with the Court’s Memorandum of the
same date, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 6) to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED and
the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

2.

If plaintiff can correct the deficiencies of his complaint, he may FILE a
motion to reopen this matter on or before March 4, 2016. Said motion shall
be accompanied by a proposed amended complaint.

3.

Any proposed amended complaint shall contain the same case number that
is already assigned to this action (3:16-cv-0183) and shall be direct,
concise, and shall stand alone without reference to any other document filed
in this matter. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8(e).

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

5.

Any appeal from this order is DEEMED frivolous and not in good faith.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).1

BY THE COURT:

s/James M. Munley
JUDGE JAMES M. MUNLEY
United States District Court

1

The Court notes that “ ‘[g]enerally, an order which dismisses a complaint without
prejudice is neither final nor appealable because the deficiency may be corrected by the plaintiff
without affecting the cause of action.’ . . . The dispositive inquiry is whether the district court’s
order finally resolved the case.” Martin v. Brown, 63 F.3d 1252, 1257–58 (3d Cir. 1995)
(quoting Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951 (3d Cir. 1976)) (other citations omitted).
In the matter sub judice, if plaintiff can correct the deficiencies of his complaint, he may file a
motion to reopen his case accompanied by a proposed amended complaint.