Opinion
CIVIL ACTION 16-554-SDD-RLB
10-24-2016
TROY DAVIS (#356886) v. SGT. MCPIPE, ET AL.
RULING
In August of 2016, the pro se Plaintiff, an inmate currently confined at Louisiana State Penitentiary ("LSP"), Angola, Louisiana, filed this proceeding, apparently pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining that officials at LSP violated his constitutional rights.
In his original Complaint, the Plaintiff listed "Sgt. McPipe, et al." as Defendants in the caption but, in section III of the Complaint, the Plaintiff wrote "See Attached & Additional Pages 1 through 7. See also page(s) 4, 5, 6, and 7" in the blank for additional Defendants. Additionally, the Plaintiff did not pay the Court's filing fee or submit a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.
Rec. Doc. 1.
Pursuant to correspondence dated August 24, 2016, the Court directed the Plaintiff to amend his Complaint by listing the parties in the caption and in part III of the Complaint exactly the same and to prepare and sign a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, within twenty-one (21) days. A copy of the Complaint and a form Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis were attached. The referenced correspondence specifically advised the Plaintiff that "failure to amend the pleadings or provide the requested information or forms as indicated will result in the dismissal of your suit by the Court without further notice."
Rec. Doc. 3.
Id. --------
A review of the record by the Court reflects that, despite notice and an opportunity to appear, the Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court's directive to amend his Complaint by listing the parties in the caption and in section III of the Complaint exactly the same and to submit a pauper motion. The Plaintiff has failed to identify with certainty who he is suing, pay the Court's filing fee, or move for pauper status.
As such, there exists unnecessary confusion as to who the Plaintiff is naming as Defendants in this matter, and the Court is not able to determine the Plaintiff's pauper status, both resulting from the Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's aforementioned directives. Therefore, the Plaintiff's action shall be dismissed, without prejudice, because of his failure to correct the deficiencies of which he was notified. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned proceeding be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on October 24, 2016.
/s/ _________
JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA