Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00693/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00693-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

 ____________________________

BILLY W. ANDERSON, #183 981 *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:10-CV-693-TMH

(WO)

RICHARD ALLEN, PRISON * 

COMMISSIONER,

*

Defendant.

 ____________________________

O R D E R

Plaintiff initiated this action on August 16, 2010. After conducting its initial review

of the complaint, the court entered an order on September 16, 2010 granting Plaintiff an

opportunity to amend his complaint in order to plead a complaint that provided fair notice

to the court and a defendant of his claim(s) against the defendant(s). The court’s September

16 order specifically advised Plaintiff that when filing his amended complaint he must: 1)

“specifically identify the individual(s) Plaintiff seeks to name as a defendant(s); 2) identify

specific claims relative to actions taken against Plaintiff by the named defendant(s) and list

these claims in separate counts; 3) describe with clarity those factual allegations that are

material to each specific count against the named defendant(s); and 4) describe how each

named defendant violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. ” (See Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff was

further informed that “[c]laims concerning defendants located at different prisons within this

district should be brought in separate complaints and/or claims concerning defendants located

Case 2:10-cv-00693-TMH-SRW Document 10 Filed 09/29/10 Page 1 of 5
at prisons located in other districts should be brought in other actions filed in the district

where the prison is located.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on September 28, 2010. Review of the

Plaintiff’s amended complaint reflects that it names the same defendants as were named in

the original complaint, still contains only general and conclusory allegations of constitutional

violations, and fails to identify how the named defendants are and/or were responsible for

the alleged violations of his constitutional rights. See Monell v. New York City Dep't of

Social Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) (doctrine of respondeat superior is inapplicable to §

1983 actions); Greason v. Kemp, 891 F.2d 829, 836 (11th Cir. 1990); Antonelli v. Sheahan,

81 F.3d 1422, 1428 (7th Cir. 1996) (“a prisoner may not attribute any of his constitutional

claims to higher officials by the doctrine of respondeat superior; the official must actually

have participated in the constitutional wrongdoing.”); see also Potter v. Clark, 497 F.2d

1206, 1207 (7th Cir. 1974) (per curiam) (court properly dismissed pro se complaint that was

silent as to defendant except for his name appearing in caption). Moreover, Plaintiff

indicates that the matters about which he complains occurred at the Donaldson Correctional

Facility which is outside the jurisdiction of this court. It further appears that the matters

about which Plaintiff complains, or at least some of them, may have occurred beyond the

statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 actions. See Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-

250 (1989) (the proper statute of limitations for § 1983 actions is the forum state’s general

or residual statute of limitations for personal injury actions); see also Lufkin v. McCallum,

956 F.2d 1104, 1105 (11th Cir. 1992) (in Alabama, the general statute of limitations for

personal injury actions is two years. Ala. Code § 6-2-38(l)). 

Case 2:10-cv-00693-TMH-SRW Document 10 Filed 09/29/10 Page 2 of 5
Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that on or before October 19, 2010 Plaintiff shall file an amended

complaint on a form for use in filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. See Local Rule 9.1

(requiring pro se litigants to utilize court's forms). The amended complaint filed in

compliance with this order shall supersede the original complaint and the September 28,

2010 amended complaint. This means that Plaintiff shall no longer rely on the original and

amended complaints and this case will proceed only on those claims raised and against those

defendants named in the second amended complaint filed in accordance with this order. 

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second amended complaint shall:

1. Identify specific claims relative to actions taken against him by those persons

named as defendants and list these claims in separate counts, e.g., identify the correctional

and/or medical personnel who have allegedly failed to provide him with adequate medial

treatment, identify when and where said individual(s) denied him allegedly adequate

medical care, and describe how the conduct and/or actions of said individual(s) allegedly

violated his constitutional rights;

2. Describe with clarity those factual allegations that are material to each specific

count against the named defendants; and

3. Describe how the named defendants violated his constitutional rights.

Plaintiff is hereby advised that the amendment to his complaint must set forth short

and plain statements showing why he is entitled to relief and be specific enough to put

each defendant on notice of how their conduct allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional

Case 2:10-cv-00693-TMH-SRW Document 10 Filed 09/29/10 Page 3 of 5
1

The court is cognizant of the fact that pro se complaints are to be liberally construed and 

held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyer.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.

519, 520-21 (1972). The court is also aware that it is expected to exercise “common sense” in

interpreting these frequently diffuse pleadings, United States ex rel. Simmons v. Zibilich, 542 F.2d 259,

260 (5th Cir. 1976) (citation omitted), and is to accord them a “liberal yet realistic construction.” Johnson

v. Estelle, 625 F.2d 75, 77 (5th Cir. 1980). Nonetheless, although pro se pleadings are to be treated more

liberally, Plaintiff is advised that he must allege “some facts . . .that convince [the court] that [he] has a

colorable claim; conclusory allegations will not suffice.” Mills v. Criminal Dist. Court # 3, 837 F.2d 677,

678 (5th Cir. 1988).

rights and should contain only claims relative to actions taken against him by the named

defendants.1

 “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ Specific facts are not

necessary, rather the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . .

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

“Plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of h[er] ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more

than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action

will not do.” Id. at 1965 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986) (on a motion

to dismiss, courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual

allegation”)). Plaintiff is further advised that his failure to timely and properly comply with

the directives contained in this order will result in a Recommendation that this action be

dismissed. 

The Clerk is DIRECTED to furnish Plaintiff with a form for use in filing a complaint

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Case 2:10-cv-00693-TMH-SRW Document 10 Filed 09/29/10 Page 4 of 5
DONE, this 29th day of September 2010.

 /s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-00693-TMH-SRW Document 10 Filed 09/29/10 Page 5 of 5