Simpson v. Circuit Court of City of Richmond et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 3/29/2018. (sbea, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
JAMES HENRY SIMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 3: 17CV470

CIRCUIT COURT OF CITY OF RICHMOND, et al.,

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding prose and in forms pauperis filed this 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, 1 action and a subsequent document entitled "Facts." (ECF No. 14.) By Memorandum

Order entered on January 25, 2018, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a Particularized Complaint.
(ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff filed a Particularized Complaint (ECF No. 17); however, this document
failed to comport with the directives of the Court.

Rather, Plaintiff submitted a fifty-page,

rambling narrative of his state court proceedings and the purported wrongdoings of every
attorney or judge involved. By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on February 22, 2018,
the Court directed Plaintiff to file a second particularized complaint and explained the following
to Plaintiff:
The Particularized Complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a). That rule provides:
1

That statute provides, in pertinent part:

Every person who, under color of any statute ... of any State ... subjects,
or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within
the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law ....
42 u.s.c. § 1983.

(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must
contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's
jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim
needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the
alternative or different types of relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff fails to provide a short and plain statement of his
claim. The Court will not consider any future Particularized Complaint that fails
to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is DIRECTED, within fourteen (14) days of the date
of entry hereof, to particularize his complaint in conformance with the following
directions and in the order set forth below:
a.
At the very top of the particularized pleading,
Plaintiff is directed to place the following caption in all capital
letters "PARTICULARIZED COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL ACTION
NUMBER 3:17CV470."
b.
The first paragraph of the particularized pleading
must contain a list of defendants. Thereafter, in the body of the
particularized complaint, Plaintiff must set forth legibly, in
separately numbered paragraphs, a short statement of the facts
giving rise to his claims for relief. Thereafter, in separately
captioned sections, Plaintiff must clearly identify each civil right
violated. Under each section, the Plaintiff must list each defendant
purportedly liable under that legal theory and explain why he
believes each defendant is liable to him. Such explanation should
reference the specific numbered factual paragraphs in the body of
the particularized complaint that support that assertion. Plaintiff
shall also include a prayer for relief.
c.
The particularized pleading will SUPPLANT the
prior complaints. The Court will not consider any allegations made
outside of the particularized complaint or included in filings
entitled "Facts." The particularized pleading must stand or fall of
its own accord. Plaintiff may not reference statements in the prior
complaints or other documents.
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOREGOING DIRECTIONS WILL
RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) provides that: "A party asserting a
claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or
alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party."
Nevertheless, when a plaintiff seeks to bring multiple claims against multiple
defendants, he must also satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 which
provides:

2

(2) Defendants. Persons . . . may be joined in one action as
defendants if:
(A) 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
(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise
in the action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). "Rule 20 does not authorize a plaintiff to add claims
'against different parties [that] present[ ] entirely different factual and legal
issues."' Sykes v. Bayer Pharm. Corp., 548 F. Supp. 2d 208,218 (E.D. Va. 2008)
(alterations in original) (quoting Lovelace v. Lee, No. 7:03cv00395, 2007 WL
3069660, at *1 (W.D. Va. Oct. 21, 2007)). Accordingly, Plaintiffs Particularized
Complaint must also comport with the joinder requirements. If Plaintiff fails to
submit an appropriate Particularized Complaint that comports with the joinder
requirements, the Court will drop all defendants not properly joined with the first
named defendant.
(ECF No. 18, at 1-3.)
On March 12, 2018 and March 20, 2018, the Court received Plaintiffs four-part Second
Particularized Complaint.

(ECF Nos. 19-22.) Plaintiff has once again failed to follow the

directives of the Court. Plaintiffs Second Particularized Complaint is at least fifty pages and is
comprised of a rambling narrative of his ongoing state court proceedings and the purported
wrongdoings of every attorney or judge involved in those proceedings. Indeed, it appears that
this Second Particularized Complaint is just a copied version of the original Particularized
Complaint that the Court has already deemed deficient. Although Plaintiffs prose status makes
him "entitled to some deference," it does not relieve him of his duty to abide by the rules and
orders of this Court. Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff has refused repeatedly to comply with the Court's directives.2 Accordingly, the action
will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2

Moreover, Plaintiffs Second Particularized Complaint appears like an attempt to harass
those individuals involved in obtaining his criminal conviction.
Cf Saub v. Phillips,
No. 3:16CV414, 2017 WL 1658831, at *9 (E.D. Va. May 1, 2017), ajf'd, 669 F. App'x 179
3

An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

J/ 2.-(i /;
Date:
Richmond, Virgihi'a

8
/s/
John A. Gibney, Jr.
United States Distri

(2017) (dismissing as malicious action brought against judges and attorneys involved in state
criminal prosecution where tone of allegations "indicates that he is bringing his suit merely to
satisfy his desire for vengeance against [those involved in securing his incarceration]" (alteration
in original)).
4