Graves v. Schofield et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Because Plaintiff is a prisoner, he is ASSESSED the civil filing fee, which shall be paid on an installment basis. The custodian of Plaintiff's inmate trust shall submit twenty percent (20%) of Pla intiff's preceding monthly income (or income credited to his trust account for the preceding month), but only when such monthly income exceeds $10.00, until the full filing fee of $350.00 has been paid to the Clerk of Court. Accordin gly, because the plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements described in the order herein, he is ORDERED to amend his complaint as directed in this order. Plaintiff will be allowed twenty (20) days from the date of entry of this order, w ithin which to comply with it. Plaintiffs failure fully to abide by the dictates of this order in a timely manner will result in the dismissal of this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Signed by District Judge Curtis L Collier on 6/13/2012. (BJL) Copy of this order and a blank 1983 Complaint form mailed to Plaintiff. A copy of this order mailed to the custodian of inmate trust accounts, and the the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction as directed in this Memorandum and Order.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at GREENEVILLE

MARESSE GRAVES, # 380398

)
)
v.
)
)
DERRICK SCHOFIELD, TDOC Comm’r;
)
DAVID SEXTON, Warden of NECC;
)
VICKI FREEMAN, Assistant Warden of
)
NECC; FREDDIE ROARK, Former STG
)
Coordinator/Current Head Supervisor of
)
CERT at NECC; MICHAEL BEAN, STG
)
Coordinator Assistant at NECC; F/N/U
)
HAYWORTH, Classification Coordinator at
)
NECC; JON SHELTON, Counselor at
)
NECC; ELAINE CARDEN, Counselor at
)
NECC; MIKE SMITH, Unit Manager at
)
NECC; MIKE PHILLIPS, STG Program
)
Counselor at NECC; CRAIG JULIAN,
)
Internal Affairs Coordinator/Investigative
)
Officer; RANDAL LEWIS, STG Program
)
Counselor at STSRCF; UNKNOWN
)
ASSISTANT WARDEN OF OPERATIONS
)
at STSRCF; ERNEST KERLEY, Internal
)
Affairs Coordinator/Investigative Officer at
)
at STSRCF; UNKNOWN CLASSIFICATION )
COORDINATOR at STSRCF; SANDY
)
HALL, Unit Mgr. and Former Acting Warden )
at RMSI; DR. F/N/U COLEMAN, Dentist at
)
RMSI; BILL SMITH, Classification
)
Coordinator at RMSI; UNKNOWN DENTIST )
at NECC; and F/N/U KILLINGSWORTH,
)
Guard at SCCF
)

NO. 2:12-cv-238
Chief Judge Curtis L. Collier

MEMORANDUM and O R D E R

Acting pro se, Maresse Graves, a state prisoner confined in the Northeast Correctional
Complex, (hereinafter “NECX”, not “NECC,” as Plaintiff’s caption indicates) has submitted
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It appears from Plaintiff’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis he lacks sufficient financial resources at the present time to pay the
required filing fee of $350.00, (Court File No. 1). See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Nonetheless,
because Plaintiff is a prisoner, he is ASSESSED the civil filing fee, which shall be paid on an
installment basis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915; McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 607 (6th Cir.
1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).
Accordingly, the custodian of Plaintiff's inmate trust account at the institution where
he now resides shall submit, as an initial partial payment, whichever is the greater of: (a)
twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly deposits to Plaintiff's inmate trust account; or
(b) twenty percent (20%) of the average monthly balance in his inmate trust account for the
six-month period preceding the filing of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A) and (B).
Thereafter, the custodian shall submit twenty percent (20%) of Plaintiff's preceding monthly
income (or income credited to his trust account for the preceding month), but only when such
monthly income exceeds $10.00, until the full filing fee of $350.00 has been paid to the Clerk
of Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). All payments should be mailed to: Clerk, USDC; 220 W.
Depot Street, Suite 200; Greeneville, TN 37743.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this order to the custodian of inmate trust
accounts wherein plaintiff is confined and to Derrick Schofield, Commissioner of the
Tennessee Department of Correction, to ensure compliance with the fee assessment and
collection procedures outlined above.

Typically, the next step the Court would take would be to review the complaint to
determine whether it states a claim entitling Plaintiff to relief or is frivolous or malicious or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2) and § 1915A. However, for the reasons which follow, the screening process
cannot be performed at this time.
The complaint is lengthy—it contains seventy-three handwritten pages, including a 5page section seeking various forms of relief —and it is convoluted. There are also more than
100 pages of attachments, the relevance of which, at first glance, is difficult to discern. The
complaint encompasses incidents and various types of conduct spanning four years (2008 2012), allegedly engaged in by numerous individual defendant officers, medical personnel,
and officials from at least four different prisons and the Tennessee Department of Correction
itself.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a complaint must contain
"a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." One
purpose of this rule is to enable a defendant to reasonably respond to the complaint. See
Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coord. Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168
(1993) (citations and quotation marks omitted) (purpose of requiring clear and plain statement
is to "give defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which
it rests").
Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the joinder of defendants only
if "any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with
respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or

occurrences; and any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the
action." Rule 20(a)(2)(A) & (B) (emphasis added). Rule 20, however, does not permit the
joinder of unrelated claims and defendants in one lawsuit. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th
Cir. 2007) ("Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not only
to prevent the sort of morass that this 50-claim, 24-defendant suit produced but also to ensure
that prisoners pay the required filing fee–for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the
number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may field without prepayment of the
required fees.").
This Court is well aware that the plaintiff is proceeding pro se and may be unfamiliar
with the intricacies of the legal system. Nevertheless, he must comply with the federal
procedural rules. Plaintiff has drafted his complaint in disregard of the principle that he
should specify each claim for relief, should concisely set forth the supporting facts, specify
the defendant(s) who were involved in the purported wrongdoing. Also, he has not complied
with the Local Rule which establishes a twenty-five (25) page limit on such filings. See LR
7.1(b). This fact alone calls for plaintiff to amend his pleading. The type of pleading plaintiff
has submitted is unacceptable and places “an intolerable toll on the [C]ourt’s docket, leads to
unnecessary . . . discovery, and impose[s] unwarranted expense on the litigants, the [C]ourt,
and the [C]ourt’s . . . personnel and resources.” Cramer v. State of Florida, 117 F.3d 1258,
1263 (11th Cir. 1997). Moreover, the string of events and conduct asserted as wrongdoing
did not arise out of the “same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences”
and there is no question of law or fact common to all defendants. It is clear the complaint
which has been submitted does not comply with the dictates of Rules 8 or 20.

Accordingly, because the plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements described
above, he is ORDERED to amend his complaint by:
1) completing and submitting the § 1983 complaint form, which is attached for his
convenience. The complaint is to contain “a short and plain statement showing [he] is entitled
to relief,"1 each identified claim is to be supplemented with concise, specific factual support,
and the assertions set forth must likewise conform to the joinder rule, and
2) the § 1983 complaint and any accompanying brief must be limited to twenty-five
(25) pages. The Court advises Plaintiff that it is well aware of the liberality with which pro
se complaints are to be viewed; thus, if he submits a pleading which conforms with Rule 8's
and 20's requirements, that pleading will be broadly construed.
Plaintiff will be allowed twenty (20) days from the date of entry of this order, within
which to comply with it. Plaintiff’s failure fully to abide by the dictates of this order in a
timely manner will result in the dismissal of this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
ENTER:
/s/
CURTIS L. COLLIER
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Plaintiff should not refer to the initial complaint when making out claims in his amended
complaint, though he need not relist each individual defendant in the caption.