Source: http://ia.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20130422_0000202.NIA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-06-23 00:17:25
Document Index: 211805275

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

TONY THOMPSON, R. BOESCHEN, LIEUTENANT HERBST, KEITH WIELAND, A'VIANDS FOOD CORP., DEFENDANTS.
The matter before the court is the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 1), filed on February 1, 2013, complaint (docket no. 1-1), filed on February 1, 2013, supplement (docket no. 2), filed on February 26, 2013, declaration (docket no. 3), filed on March 29, 2013, motion for discovery (docket no. 4), filed on March 29, 2013, motion to appoint counsel (docket no. 5), filed on March 29, 2013, second supplement (docket no. 6), filed on March 29, 2013, third supplement (docket no. 7), filed on March 29, 2013, summons (docket no. 8), filed on March 29, 2013, motion for default entry (docket no. 9), filed on April 3, 2013, second declaration (docket no. 10), filed on April 3, 2013, motion to file amended complaint (docket no. 11), filed on April 16, 2013, notice of consent to prepare declarations for others (docket no. 12), filed on April 17, 2013, and declarations of inmates (docket no. 13), filed on April 17, 2013.
As to the plaintiff's motion for discovery (docket no. 4), summons (docket no. 8) and motion for default entry (docket no. 9), the plaintiff misunderstands the nature of proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Requesting discovery and default are premature because the court has not conducted an initial review of the plaintiff's pleadings. If discovery is warranted, it will be established by a scheduling order. And, default entry is not appropriate because service upon the defendants has never been authorized and effectuated. So, these motions shall be denied.
Regarding the plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel, the court's determination is based on multiple factors, including the complexity of the case, and, although the court does appoint attorneys in actions that arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it is not required to appoint an attorney. See Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996) (setting forth factors to be considered for appointment of counsel in civil case); Abdullah v. Gunter, 949 F.2d 1032, 1035 (8th Cir. 1991) (same); Wiggins v. Sargent, 753 F.2d 663, 668 (8th Cir. 1985) (stating an indigent litigant enjoys neither a statutory nor a constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a civil case). Given the record, the court finds that appointing an attorney is not necessary. Accordingly, the motion to appoint counsel shall be denied.
Concerning the plaintiff's complaint (docket no. 1-1), supplement (docket no. 2), declaration (docket no. 3), second supplement (docket no. 6), third supplement (docket no. 7), second declaration (docket no. 10), motion to file amended complaint (docket no. 11), notice of consent to prepare declarations for others (docket no. 12) and declarations of inmates (docket no. 13), they do not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Although courts construe pro se pleadings liberally, pro se litigants, like all other parties, must abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Williams v. Harmon, 294 F. App'x 243, 245 (8th Cir. 2008) (affirming dismissal where pro se litigant failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require parties to formulate their pleadings in an organized and comprehensible manner. Specifically, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1)-(3) requires that a complaint contain a "short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction" a "short and plain statement" of the plaintiff's claims and a "demand for the relief sought." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d)(1) provides that, although no technical form of pleading is required, each claim must be simple, concise and direct. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b) directs parties to separate their claims within their pleadings and provides that each claim should be limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances. In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b) makes clear that each claim that is founded on a separate transaction or occurrence must be stated in a separate count where doing so would promote clarity.
The plaintiff's claims are not simple, concise and direct. It is evident from the record that the plaintiff inundated the court with filings. Because he sought to name additional defendants, to add additional plaintiffs, to expand on his malnutrition claims and to submit exhibits after filing his original pleading, the record is very difficult to review. Stated differently, the court finds that it is extraordinarily hard to discern what claims the plaintiff is actually asserting against the named defendants. Given the record, the court is of the opinion that the matter is best addressed by requiring the plaintiff to file an amended and substituted complaint. The plaintiff shall file by no later than May 22, 2013 an amended and substituted complaint specifically setting forth pertinent facts, if they exist, which state a constitutional violation and naming those specific persons who, acting under color of law, allegedly violated his rights. The plaintiff shall only state what each defendant personally did, or failed to do, which resulted in harm to him. The plaintiff shall refrain from speaking on behalf of other inmates and giving legal arguments.*fn1 The plaintiff should attempt to limit the "statement of claim" portion of his complaint to three pages, written on one side of the paper and double-spaced. And, the plaintiff shall state the date and place of all events that provide the basis for any claim that arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. If the plaintiff fails to file an amended and substituted complaint by May 22, 2013, this action will be dismissed. If necessary, the plaintiff may request in a written motion an extension of time to file an amended and substituted complaint. The clerk's office shall send the plaintiff the form that is regularly used by those who seek relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. If he so chooses, the plaintiff may complete and submit it as his amended and substituted complaint.
So, the plaintiff's motion to filed an amended complaint (docket no. 11) is granted. The court, however, will not rely on every filing that the plaintiff submitted. Rather, as previously stated, the court will afford the plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended and substituted complaint and conduct the necessary review once it is filed. Finally, the plaintiff should be aware that any claims that are not realleged in his amended and substituted complaint will be deemed abandoned by the court. See In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recover Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005). The court shall reserve ruling on the plaintiff's claims for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.*fn2
3) The plaintiff is directed to submit an initial partial filing fee of $11.16 by no later than May 22, 2013. The clerk's office is directed to dismiss without prejudice this action unless either the initial partial filing fee of $11.16 is received by May 22, 2013 or the court grants an enlargement ...