Leggins v. Kaemingk et al

Filing 23

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

^5M6r«,v_„
I

'CIERK

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ARTIE PAWNEE LEGGINS,

4:16-CV-04148-LLP

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING

vs.

MOTION TO AMEND

SALLY BOYD,(Special Security Officer);
LEVI HOLDFELT,(Special Security
Officer),
Defendants.

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
stated above.

Dated this

of June, 2017BY THE COURT:

),awrence L. Piersol
United States District Judge

ATTEST:

JOSEPH HMS,CLERK
BY;

Deputy