Neri, Quincy v. Monroe, Melinda et al
Filing
8
ORDER dismissing 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 Complaints without prejudice to plaintiff's refiling an amended complaint that encompasses all of her claims. Amended Complaint due 8/12/2011. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 7/25/2011. (jef),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - QUINCY M. NERI,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
11-cv-429-slc1
v.
MELINDA MONROE, STEVE LARSON,
ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING ARTS, INC.,
LESLEY SAGER, LINDA HUGHES,
FRITZ SCHOMBURG, AMY RADSPINNER,
ERIC FERGUSON and
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Since June 15, 2011, pro se plaintiff Quincy M. Neri has filed a complaint and four
proposed amended complaints. Dkt. ##1, 4-7. Because no complaint has been served on
any of the defendants, I would be inclined to accept the most recently filed complaint as the
operative pleading in the case. The problem is that each new complaint seems to be a
supplement to the complaint that preceded it rather than a stand-alone pleading.
Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, it “supersedes an original complaint and
1
I am exercising jurisdiction over this case for the purpose of this order.
1
renders the original complaint void.” Flannery v. Recording Industry Association of America,
354 F.3d 632, 638 (7th Cir. 2004). See also Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727, 735 (7th
Cir. 1999)(“[W]hen a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the new complaint supersedes
all previous complaints and controls the case from that point forward.”). In other words, a
case may have one operative pleading only; a plaintiff may not add to a complaint in
piecemeal fashion. As I have informed other pro se plaintiffs, "parties are not allowed to
amend a pleading by simply adding to or subtracting from the original pleading in
subsequent filings scattered about the docket. If [plaintiffs] wish to amend their complaint,
they must file a proposed amended complaint that will completely replace the original
complaint. . . . [T]here can be only one operative complaint in the case." Boriboune v. Berge,
No. 04-C-15-C, 2005 WL 256525, *1 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 31, 2005).
The reason for such a rule is plain enough. If the “operative pleading” consists of
multiple documents, the scope of the plaintiff’s claims becomes unclear and it becomes
difficult if not impossible for the defendants to file an answer. To avoid ambiguity, the
complaint must be self-contained.
I will give plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint one more time so that he
may file a single pleading that encompasses all of his claims. Before doing so, he should
carefully consider whether he has included all of the necessary allegations against every
defendant he wishes to sue. The fact that plaintiff has filed five complaints over the span
2
of a month suggests that he has not done this to date. Complaints cannot be a moving
target, constantly changing throughout the lawsuit. At some point, plaintiff must determine
once and for all what his claims are.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Quincy Neri’s complaint, dkt. #1, and four amended
complaints, dkt. ##4-7, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to his refiling an
amended complaint that encompasses of all of his claims and does not rely on any previous
pleadings. Plaintiff may have until August 12, 2011, to file an amended complaint. If he
does not respond by that date, the clerk of court is directed to close the case.
Entered this 25th day of July, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge
3
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?