Leggins v. Kaemingk et al
ORDER denying 22 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 6/16/17. (DJP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
JUN 1 6 2017
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
ARTIE PAWNEE LEGGINS,
MOTION TO AMEND
SALLY BOYD,(Special Security Officer);
LEVI HOLDFELT,(Special Security
Plaintiff, Artie Pawnee Leggins, is an inmate at the South Dakota State
Penitentiary in Sioux Falls. He filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Docket 1. The Court screened Leggins' complaint, dismissed all
of the defendants other than Sally Boyd and Levi Holdfelt, and ordered service
upon those two defendants. Docket 6. Leggins now moves to amend his
complaint. Docket 22.
Within 21 days after serving a complaint, a plaintiff may amend the
complaint once as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Leggins has not
served his complaint. However, Leggins did not follow the local rules which
state that "any party moving to amend a pleading will attach a copy of the
proposed amended pleading to its motion to amend with the proposed changes
highlighted or underlined so that they may be easily identified." D.S.D. Civ. LR
15.1. While civil rights and pro se complaints must be liberally construed.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)(citation omitted); Bediako v. Stein
Mart, Inc., 354 F.Sd 835, 839 (8th Cir. 2004), pro se plaintiffs still must follow
the Court's local rules. See Bennett v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 295 F.3d 805,
808 (8th Cir. 2002)(stating that pro se status does not entitle litigant to
disregard Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or local rules). Here, Leggins'
amended complaint concerns different incidences than his original complaint,
and it is therefore impossible to tell whether he wishes to continue with the
claims in his original complaint.
Leggins is reminded that under § 1915A pro se prisoner complaints
must be screened and dismissed if they are "frivolous, malicious, or fail to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted[.]" Leggins is further reminded
that his claims must be brought within the statute of limitations. Because
§ 1983 does not contain a specific statute of limitations, the United States
Supreme Court has instructed courts to apply the analogous state statute of
limitations. Bell v. Fowler, 99 F.3d 262, 265-66 (8th Cir.1996)(citing WUson v.
Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266-68 (1985)). Under South Dakota law,"civil rights
actions must be brought within three years after the alleged constitutional
deprivation occurred or the action will be barred." Id. at 266; SDCL 15-2-15.2.
Therefore, claims concerning alleged constitutional violations occurring before
June 2, 2014 (from the date of his amended complaint) will be barred.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Leggins'motion to amend (Doc. 22) is denied. If Leggins
wishes to file another amended complaint, he must follow the local rules as
of June, 2017BY THE COURT:
),awrence L. Piersol
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?