Andreyev v. DOE et al

Filing 56

Order not accepting plaintiff's 7/29/10 amended complaint. Proposed amended complaint due 8/16/2010. Plaintiff's third motion for appointment of counsel is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 8/2/10. (elc),(ps)

Andr eyev, Sergey v. Doe, John et al.

Do c. 56

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF W I S C O N S I N

SERGEY V. ANDREYEV, P l a in t if f, v. D E N N I S E. RICHARDS, et al., D e fe n d a n t s. ORD ER 09-cv-651-slc

P l a i n t i f f is proceeding on his claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his s e r io u s dental needs. On June 7, 2010, I gave plaintiff until July 30, 2010 to file an amended c o m p l a in t replacing all references to Doe defendants with the names provided to him in discovery. P l a in t if f has filed a proposed amended complaint in which he names 17 second and third shift s erg e a n ts and jailers as defendants. However, plaintiff has not replaced all references to the Doe d e f e n d a n t s in the body of the complaint with the real names of the people actually involved. This n e e d s to happen so everyone knows who allegedly did what. I will give plaintiff one more opportunity to do this. Specifically, at p. 3 of his proposed a m e n d e d complaint he needs to replace "jailers" and "second and third shift sergeants" with the n a m e s of the defendants who actually denied him dental care items. If plaintiff succeeds in filing a proper proposed amended complaint, the named Doe defendants will need to be served by the U n i te d States Marshal before they can answer the complaint. If plaintiff fails to submit a proper p r o p o s e d amended complaint by August 16, 2010, then the Doe defendants probably will be d i s m is se d from this lawsuit. In other words, the court is not accepting plaintiff's July 27, 2010 p r o p o s e d amended complaint, but plaintiff gets another chance to plug in the necessary in fo rm a ti o n .. A l s o before the court is plaintiff's third motion for appointment of counsel. On March 17, 2 0 1 0 , in denying his second motion for appointment of counsel found that plaintiff was capable

Dockets.Justia.com

o f representing himself in this action. In this third motion, he does not present any new reasons t o suggest that counsel is now warranted. Plaintiff's failure to provide a useable amended

c o m p l a in t does not change this view. Therefore , plaintiff's third motion for appointment of c o u n s e l will be denied.

ORD ER I T IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's July 29, 2010 amended complaint is NOT ACCEPTED. 2 . Plaintiff may have one last opportunity to file a proposed amended complaint a s described herein. If plaintiff fails to submit such a complaint by August 16, 2 0 1 0 , the Doe defendants may be dismissed. 3 . Plaintiff's third motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. E n t e re d this 2 n d day of August, 2010. B Y THE COURT: /s / S T E P H E N L. CROCKER M a g is tra t e Judge

2