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)

Download PDF
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 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?