Donahue v. Wellpath, LLC et al

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Donahue's 31 second amended complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Donahue shall have 21 day from the date of this Order in which to file an appropriate pleading that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rule of Court, and today's Order. Defendants' pending 32 motion to dismiss and Donahue's pending 14 motion for appointment of counsel are DISMISSED as moot and without prejudice. (See Order for further details.) Signed by Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann on 9/24/2024. (ea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KELLY B. DONAHUE,

No. 4:24-CV-00513

Plaintiff,

(Chief Judge Brann)

v.
WELLPATH CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SEPTEMBER 24, 2024
Plaintiff Kelly B. Donahue filed the instant pro se civil rights lawsuit in
March 2024.1 He is suing multiple state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
constitutional deprivations regarding allegedly inadequate medical care.
Donahue, however, has had significant difficulties with his pro se pleadings.
His first complaint was dismissed primarily because he had failed to allege
personal involvement or deliberate indifference by any named Defendant.2
Donahue filed an amended complaint,3 which contained many of the same
problems as his original complaint. That is, Donahue once again failed to
plausibly allege personal involvement or deliberate indifference for most of the
named Defendants.4 The Court gave Donahue the option of proceeding with the
1
2
3
4

Doc. 1.
See Doc. 11 at 4-8.
Doc. 13.
See Doc. 29 at 5-8.

single claim he had plausibly stated against Wellpath, LLC, or filing a final second
amended complaint.5 The Court also gave Donahue specific instructions if he
chose to amend his pleadings, including abiding by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8.6
Donahue opted to file a second amended complaint but did not heed this
Court’s instructions. His second amended complaint is 70 pages in length and
contains 628 paragraphs, appearing to provide a day-by-day (and sometimes hourby-hour) breakdown of his medical issues and treatment for a two-and-a-half year
time period.7 In no way could Donahue’s pleading be considered a “short and
plain statement” of his claims for relief.
Donahue, moreover, has disregarded this Court’s explicit pleading directions
in multiple ways, including by providing numerous citations and quotations from
case law8 when he was specifically admonished that he “may not include legal
standards, legal argument, or citations to legal authority unless absolutely
necessary to plead a claim[.]”9 Donahue also appears to have included defendants
who were involved only with the grievance process, even though he was explicitly
warned against doing so.10 Additionally, Donahue attempts to include claims

5
6
7
8
9
10

See id. at 16-17.
See id.
See generally Doc. 31.
See, e.g., Doc. 31 ¶¶ 5-11, 93-97, 105, 123, 126, 133, 139, 154-56, 159, 214.
Doc. 29 at 17.
See id. at 16.

2

against different Defendants that are unrelated to his Eighth Amendment medical
care claims,11 thus violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2).
“Taken together, Rules 8(a) and 8([d])(1) underscore the emphasis placed on
clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules.”12 A statement must be plain “to
give the adverse party fair notice of the claim asserted so as to enable [the party] to
answer and prepare for trial,” and must be short to avoid placing “an unjustified
burden on the court and the part[ies] who must respond to it because they are
forced to select the relevant material from a mass of verbiage.”13 As the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has explained, “a district court acts
within its discretion when it dismisses an excessively prolix and overlong
complaint,” especially after the litigant has been given an opportunity “to better
tailor [his] pleading.”14
Donahue—a serial pro se litigant—should understand by now what is
required under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Not only does his
overly complicated and excessively verbose pleading burden the Court, it also
makes it nearly impossible for Defendants to respond to his allegations.

11
12
13

14

See, e.g., Doc. 31 ¶¶ 298-316 (discussing COVID-19 virus issues).
In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 702 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting 5 CHARLES A. WRIGHT
& ARTHUR R. MILLER, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1217 at 169 (2d ed. 1990)).
Folk v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 21-1543, 2021 WL 3521143, at *3 (3d Cir. Aug. 11, 2021)
(nonprecedential) (second alteration in original) (quoting Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40,
42 (2d Cir. 1988)).
Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 93 (3d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 140 S. Ct.
1611 (2020) (alteration in original).

3

Consequently, the Court will dismiss his second amended complaint without
prejudice and give him one final opportunity to follow this Court’s directions and
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court strongly advises Donahue to heed
the following pleading instructions:
 The third amended complaint should be a stand-alone document,
complete in itself and without reference to any previous pleading.
 The third amended complaint should set forth Donahue’s claim or claims
in short, concise, and plain statements, and in sequentially numbered
paragraphs. Donahue may—like in his second amended complaint—
divide his pleading into his claims against each Defendant, as this enables
better understanding of his allegations against each of the many
Defendants he is attempting to sue.
 Donahue must leave one-inch margins on all four sides of his pleading.
 Donahue may not include quotations from prior court decisions, legal
standards of review, case citations (unless absolutely necessary to
describe a claim), or legal argument. Such law and arguments are
unnecessary to plead a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and
only serve to lengthen and clutter the complaint.
 Donahue must name proper defendants and specify the offending actions
taken by a particular defendant. He is admonished that he must comply
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) if attempting to join
multiple defendants in a single action.
 Donahue is again reminded that involvement in the post-incident
grievance process, without more, does not constitute personal
involvement for a Section 1983 claim.
Failure to comply with these specific instructions will result in the Court striking
the third amended complaint from the record.

4

AND NOW, upon consideration of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that:
1.

Donahue’s second amended complaint (Doc. 31) is DISMISSED
without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8.

2.

Donahue shall have 21 days from the date of this Order in which to
file an appropriate pleading that complies with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of Court,15 and today’s Order.

3.

If Donahue fails to comply with this Court’s specific instructions, the
Court will strike any noncompliant amended pleading from the record
and may dismiss this case with prejudice.

4.

In light of the foregoing paragraphs, Defendants’ pending motion to
dismiss (Doc. 32) and Donahue’s pending motion for appointment of
counsel (Doc. 14) are DISMISSED as moot and without prejudice.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge

15

Relevant portions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Middle District of
Pennsylvania Local Rules of Court were mailed to Donahue at the outset of this case. See Doc.
3; Doc. 3-4.

5