Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_12-cv-00718/USCOURTS-alsd-1_12-cv-00718-0/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 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICKIE LEE CLOY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-00718-KD-N

)

TRACY BOUCKUEY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion (doc. 17) to stay this action to 

allow plaintiff time to “adequately prepare a proper 1983 [Complaint using the Court’s 

form].” A stay of this action would be inappropriate and, consequently, plaintiff’s 

motion to stay is hereby DENIED. The Court will, however, grant plaintiff additional 

time to comply with the Order entered on February 13, 2013 (doc. 16). Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that plaintiff now file no later than May 20, 2013, a second amended 

complaint on this Court’s § 1983 complaint form that corrects the pleading deficiencies 

noted in the Court’s Order dated February 21, 2013 (doc. 16) and states a claim for a 

violation of his constitutional rights.

As stated previously, plaintiff’s second amended complaint will supercede 

plaintiff’s prior complaints (docs. 1,4). Plaintiff, therefore, shall not rely on them. The 

Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a form for a complaint under § 1983.

Case 1:12-cv-00718-KD-N Document 18 Filed 03/21/13 Page 1 of 2
2

Failure to comply with this order within the prescribed time or to notify the Court 

of a change of address will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice. And a 

failure to plead a second amended complaint that complies with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), after 

being required to replead a complaint, may result in the dismissal of the action under 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to comply with the Court’s order. Pelletier v. Zweifel, 921 

F.2d 1465, 1522 n. 103 (11th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 855 (1991).

On January 2, 2013, plaintiff filed a “Petition to Summon a Special Master” (doc. 

12) pursuant to § 16.8 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Upon consideration of this 

petition and all pertinent portions of the record, the Court finds that it has previously 

advised the plaintiff that he is not entitled to appointed counsel because he has not 

“demonstrated that his case present[s] exceptional circumstances warranting the

appointment of counsel.” Doc. 10 at 1-2, citing Tipps v. Leonard, 2009 WL 1362831, *1 

(5th Cir. May 15, 2009); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982). 

The circumstances warranting the appointment of a Special Master must be even more 

exceptional than that required for appointment of counsel in a case such as this one. It is, 

therefore, ORDERED that plaintiff’s petition (doc. 12) is hereby DENIED. 

DONE this 21st day of March, 2013.

/s/Katherine P. Nelson

KATHERINE P. NELSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:12-cv-00718-KD-N Document 18 Filed 03/21/13 Page 2 of 2