Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arkansas/aredce/5:2012cv00271/90456/10
Timestamp: 2016-10-21 16:42:19
Document Index: 712770016

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§\n1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1997', '§ 1915']

ORDER STRIKING 4 Amended Complaint, STRIKING 2 Complaint filed by Willard Mathis, modifying 7 Order to clarify that the monthly payments from Mathis's inmate trust account should be sent to the Clerk for the payment of Willard v for Mathis v. Meinzer et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings Log In
ORDER STRIKING 4 Amended Complaint, STRIKING 2 Complaint filed by Willard Mathis, modifying 7 Order to clarify that the monthly payments from Mathis's inmate trust account should be sent to the Clerk for the payment of Willard v. Mein zer, 5:12-cv-00271, and NOT Reid v. Meinzer, 5:12-cv-230; and directing plaintiff to, within 30 days of the entry of this Order, file a substituted complaint containing the information specified herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 7/30/12. (kpr)
5:12-cv-00271-JLH-JTK
Plaintiff Willard Mathis is a state inmate incarcerated at the Varner Super Max Unit
(“VSM”) of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). In early July, 2012, he and eight other
prisoners jointly filed a pro se1 Complaint and Amended Complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
challenging the constitutionality of the VSM incentive level program and alleging that Defendants
violated their constitutional rights in other ways. See Reid v. Meinzer; 5:12-cv-00230-KGB-BD
(Doc. Nos. 1, 10).
On July 18, 2012, the Court granted each of the Plaintiffs permission to proceed in forma
Plaintiff is further notified of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides that a prisoner may not
proceed with a civil suit in forma pauperis “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
pauperis and directed the ADC to collect monthly payments from each of their inmate trust accounts.
See Reid (Doc. No. 30). On that same day, the Court determined that the Plaintiffs’ claims were
legally and factually different, and severed each of Plaintiffs’ claims into separate lawsuits,
including this current lawsuit in which Willard Mathis is the only Plaintiff. See Reid (Doc. No. 33.)
When the Clerk did so, copies of the jointly-filed Complaint, Amended Complaint, and July 18,
2012 Order granting in forma pauperis status were filed in each separately-severed lawsuit. (Doc.
Nos. 1, 2, 4).
The July 18, 2012 Order granting Plaintiffs permission to proceed in forma pauperis stated
for payment of the $350 filing fee in Reid v. Meinzer, 5:12-cv-00230-KGB-BD. Now that the cases
have been severed, however, each Plaintiff is responsible for paying the entire $350 filing fee for
their individual lawsuits.
Mathis’s inmate trust account should be sent to the Clerk for payment in this case, Mathis v.
Meinzer, 5:12-cv-00271-JLH-JTK, and not Reid v. Meinzer, 5:12-cv00230-KGB-BD.
complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or a portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims
that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;
1915A(b). When making this determination, the Court must accept the truth of the factual
allegations contained in the complaint. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Reynolds
v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2011).
To survive a court's 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1) screening, a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
alleged. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-7. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability
requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.
Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant's liability, it “stops
short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Id.
The Court did not screen the jointly-filed Complaint and Amended Complaint prior to
severing the Reid case into separate lawsuits. It is difficult to determine from those Complaints
how Plaintiff’s individual constitutional rights were violated by each of the Defendants.2
Accordingly, for the sake of clarity, the Court will strike the jointly-filed Complaint and Amended
Complaint from the record in this case, and give Plaintiff Mathis thirty days to file a “Substituted
Complaint” clarifying: (1) how and when his individual constitutional rights were violated; and (2)
how Defendants Meinzer, Banks, and Hobbs personally participated in each of the alleged
constitutional violations. Plaintiff should provide specific facts against each named Defendant in
a simple, concise, and direct manner.
Additionally, the PLRA requires a prisoner to fully and properly exhaust his administrative
remedies as to each claim raised in a Complaint. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 219 (2007);
Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003). Although exhaustion is not examined by the
Court during § 1915A screening, it is a matter that will likely be raised by the Defendants if this case
progresses. Thus, it would benefit Plaintiff to include, in his Substituted Complaint, only his fully
and properly exhausted claims.
The July 18, 2012 Order (docket entry #7) is MODIFIED to clarify that the monthly
payments from Plaintiff Willard Mathis’s inmate trust account should be sent to the Clerk for the
payment of Willard v. Meinzer, 5-12cv-00271, and not Reid v. Meinzer; 5:12-cv-00230.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order and the July 18, 2012 Order (docket
The Complaint and Amended Complaint (Doc. Nos. 2, 4) are STRICKEN FROM
Plaintiff must, within thirty days of the entry of this Order, file a Substituted
Complaint containing the information specified herein.
Plaintiff is reminded that if he fails to timely and properly do so, this case will be
dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).