Hight v. Cox et al

Filing 49

ORDER: The plaintiff is given a deadline of February 7, 2014, to file an amended complaint. The Clerk is directed to send to the plaintiff a copy of the docket in this action and copies of Docket Entry Nos. 34, 35, 37, and 41. Signed by Magistrate Judge Juliet E. Griffin on 1/9/14. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail along w/copies of DEs 34, 35, 37 & 41.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(tmw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
DARYL A. HIGHT
v.
DUSTIN COX

)
)
)
)
)

NO: 3:13-0367

ORDER
By Order entered January 7, 2014 (Docket Entry No. 47), this case was referred to the
Magistrate Judge for case management, decision on all pretrial, nondispositive motions and report
and recommendation on all dispositive motions under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and to conduct any
necessary proceedings under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff filed this lawsuit on April 19, 2013, asserting federal civil rights claims under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state law claims, against Dustin Cox, Allyson Abbott, and David Bragg.
By Order entered November 20, 2013 (Docket Entry No. 35), the Court addressed motions filed by
the defendants and dismissed with prejudice all claims in the action except for the plaintiff’s
malicious prosecution claims against Defendant Cox, which were dismissed without prejudice. The
Court then granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint asserting amended malicious
prosecution claims against Officer Cox. The plaintiff was subsequently granted an extension of time
to December 20, 2013, to file his amended complaint. See Order entered December 3, 2013 (Docket
Entry No. 37). To date, an amended complaint has not been filed.
However, on December 17 and 20, 2013, counsel for the plaintiff filed motions to withdraw
as the plaintiff’s attorney. See Docket Entry Nos. 40 and 42. The plaintiff responded to these
motions by filing a “pro se notice to proceed,” in which he stated that he had “released” his counsel

and was going to proceed pro se. See Docket Entry No. 44. By Order entered January 7, 2014
(Docket Entry No. 46), the Court allowed counsel for the plaintiff to withdraw.
The deadline for filing an amended complaint has expired. However, given that counsel for
the plaintiff was permitted to withdraw from the action during the time period when the amended
complaint was due and given that the now pro se plaintiff may not have received any of the Court’s
orders prior to his counsel withdrawing, the plaintiff is given a deadline of February 7, 2014, to file
an amended complaint. As provided in the Order entered November 20, 2013 (Docket Entry
No. 35), the only claims that may be included in the amended complaint are amended malicious
prosecution claims against Defendant Cox. The plaintiff is warned that failure to timely file such
an amended complaint will result in a recommendation for the dismissal of this action.
Because the plaintiff has indicated his desire to proceed pro se, he is advised that, in
accordance with Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he must send to counsel for
Defendant Cox a copy of anything he files with the Court and include in his filing a certificate of
service stating that such a copy has been mailed, when it was mailed, and to what address it was
mailed. At this time, Defendant Cox is represented by Edward Evan Cope and Nicholas C.
Christiansen whose address is Cope, Hudson, Reed & McCreary, 16 Public Square North,
Murfreesboro, TN 37130. The plaintiff is further advised that he must keep both the Court and the
opposing party in this action informed of any change of address.
The Clerk is directed to send to the plaintiff a copy of the docket in this action and copies of
Docket Entry Nos. 34, 35, 37, and 41.
Any party desiring to appeal this Order may do so by filing a motion for review no later than
fourteen (14) days from the date this Order is served upon the party. The motion for review must
2

be accompanied by a brief or other pertinent documents to apprise the District Judge of the basis for
appeal. See Rule 72.02(b) of the Local Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED.

JULIET GRIFFIN
United States Magistrate Judge

3