Opinion
3:21-CV-00078-CAR-CHW
08-27-2021
JAMES DORSEY, Plaintiff, v. CAPTAIN CLAY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
Charles H. Weigle, United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court are the claims of Plaintiff James Dorsey, a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Franklin County Detention Center in Carnesville, Georgia. Plaintiff has now filed five different documents in which he seeks to amend or supplement his original Complaint (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 7, 12, 13). Plaintiff has also filed a motion seeking emergency medical services (ECF No. 6) and a motion requesting that the Court hold jail staff in contempt for failing to certify his prison trust fund account information (ECF No. 11). Finally, Plaintiff has filed a partial motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action (ECF No. 10) and a motion seeking an extension of time to file his prison trust fund account information (ECF No. 9).
I. Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
In accordance with the Court previous orders and instructions, Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but he has not included a certified copy of his prison trust fund account information as required. Plaintiff contends that the Franklin County Jail administrator's office has refused to complete the required certification form, and he seeks an extension of time to provide this information as well as an order holding staff in contempt for refusing to cooperate.
As Plaintiff was previously advised, a prisoner seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis must submit (1) an affidavit in support of his claim of indigence and (2) “a certified copy of [his] trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) . . . for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)-(2). Accordingly, Plaintiff is DIRECTED either to pay the Court's $400.00 filing fee or to submit a complete and proper motion to proceed without the prepayment of the filing fee, which should include a certified copy of his trust fund account statement within TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS of the date of this Order. The Clerk is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the appropriate forms for this purpose, marked with the case number for the above-captioned action.
If Plaintiff continues to experience difficulty obtaining this information, Plaintiff is instructed to show the appropriate prison official this Order when he requests this information. If the prison official refuses to provide the requested information, Plaintiff should notify the Court: (1) the name of the prison official from whom he requested the certified copy of his trust fund account statement; (2) the date he made such request; and (3) the date that he was notified that the prison official would not provide the requested documentation. If Plaintiff receives notification in writing from the prison official regarding an inability to provide a certified copy of his prison trust fund account statement, Plaintiff should provide the Court with a copy of this notification. Plaintiff should provide this information within TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS of the date of this Order if he is unable to receive assistance from the appropriate prison official. In light of this Order, Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 9) is DENIED as moot, and it is also RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion for contempt (ECF No. 11) and his requests to have Defendant Clay notarize and certify his trust fund account documents in his “Notice of Retaliation” (ECF No. 7) be DENIED as moot.
II. Order to Recast
Plaintiff's original Complaint in this action alleges that Defendants at the Franklin County Jail (“FCJ”) refused to send him to an outside physician for an ultrasound to diagnose sudden pain in his stomach that could signal an infection in his bladder or appendix. Compl. 3, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also alleged that officials at the jail had not yet given him the second dose of his COVID-19 vaccination. Id. at 4.
Plaintiff has since sought to add more claims to his Complaint. First, he complains that Defendants at FCJ changed his liver medication without informing him and refuse to “check his blood for cancer” and check his “ammonia levels . . . for build-up.” 1st Mot. Am. 1-3, ECF No. 4. Second, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants at FCJ are (1) harassing him (or allowing him to be harassed); (2) allowing him only 15 minutes per day outside of his cell; (3) retaliating against him by refusing to allow him to file criminal “hate crime charges” against another inmate; (4) discriminating against him because he has Tourette's Syndrome; and (5) opening his legal mail. See generally 2d Mot. Am., ECF No. 5; see generally Third Mot. Am., ECF No. 12. In addition, Plaintiff contends Defendants have destroyed his legal papers. Fourth Mot. Am. 2, ECF No. 13. Finally, Plaintiff has also filed a “Notice of Retaliation” that will be construed as a motion to amend or supplement his Complaint to add claims that Defendant Clay has retaliated against him by refusing to certify or notarize his prison trust fund account information or other legal paperwork and by failing to have a plumber unclog Plaintiff's drains. Notice of Retaliation 1, ECF No. 7.
A plaintiff may set forth only related claims in a single lawsuit. A plaintiff may not join unrelated claims and various defendants in his complaint unless the claims arise “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 20 (emphasis added). “[A] claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence if there is a logical relationship between the claims.” Construction Aggregates, Ltd. v. Forest Commodities Corp., 147 F.3d 1334, 1337 n.6 (11th Cir. 1998).
When viewing Plaintiff's filings as a whole, it is not entirely clear which claims he intends to bring against which Defendants, and it is also unclear how each of the claims he has raised in his multiple amendments are logically related to one another. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to recast his Complaint to include all amendments and additional facts he wishes to make a part of his pleading. The recast complaint must contain a caption that clearly identifies, by name, each individual that Plaintiff has a claim against and wishes to include as a defendant in the present lawsuit. Plaintiff must then list each defendant again in the body of his complaint and tell the Court exactly how that individual violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff should state his claims as simply as possible and need not attempt to include legal citations or legal terminology.
If, in his recast complaint, Plaintiff fails to link a named defendant to a claim, the claim will be dismissed. Likewise, if Plaintiff makes no allegations in the body of his recast complaint against a named defendant, that defendant will be dismissed. Plaintiff is cautioned that the opportunity to recast is not an invitation for him to include every imaginable claim that he may have against any state official. Plaintiff will not be permitted join claims against multiple defendants in one action unless Plaintiff can establish a logical relationship between the claims as required by Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The recast complaint will supersede (take the place of) the original Complaint (ECF No. 1) and all additional amendments or supplements filed to date (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 7, 12, 13). The Court will not look back to the factual allegations in these pleadings, or any other documents Plaintiff has filed in this case, to determine whether Plaintiff has stated a cognizable constitutional claim. The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a copy of the § 1983 form marked with the case number of the above-captioned action to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff shall have TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS from the date of this Order to submit a recast complaint on this form. Because Plaintiff will be permitted to include all allegations he wishes to make a part of this case in his Recast Complaint, his motions to amend or supplement (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 7) are DENIED as moot.
III. Motion for Emergency Medical Treatment
Plaintiff has also filed a separate motion seeking emergency medical treatment that will be construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 6). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order directing officials at FCJ to (1) provide him with an ultrasound to determine the cause of his pain; (2) provide him with Lasix (a medication prescribed by his personal physicians) instead of the medication they are currently providing him at the jail; (3) perform an ammonia levels test; and (4) perform a blood test to check for cancer. Mot. Emergency Medical Relief 1, ECF No. 6. A preliminary injunction is a drastic remedy used primarily to preserve the status quo rather than grant most or all of the substantive relief sought in the complaint. See, e.g., Cate v. Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176, 1185 (11th Cir. 1983); Fernandez-Roque v. Smith, 671 F.2d 426, 429 (11th Cir. 1982). Factors a movant must show to be entitled to a preliminary injunction include: “(1) a substantial likelihood of ultimate success on the merits; (2) the [preliminary injunction] is necessary to prevent irreparable injury; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the harm the [preliminary injunction] would inflict on the non-movant; and (4) the [preliminary injunction] would serve the public interest.” Ingram v. Ault, 50 F.3d 898, 900 (11th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).
Plaintiff does not clearly address these factors in his Complaint, and at this juncture the facts have not been sufficiently developed to conclude that there is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiff will ultimately prevail on the merits. In addition, Defendants have not been served or had a meaningful opportunity to respond to Plaintiff's allegations. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(1) (“The court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party.”). Defendants should be afforded an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff's allegations, and any claims for injunctive relief can be addressed as this case proceeds. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction should therefore be denied.
IV. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is ORDERED to recast his Complaint on the Court's standard form in accordance with the directions above. Plaintiff shall have TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS of the date of this Order to file his recast complaint, and
Plaintiff's motions to amend or supplement his Complaint (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 7) and his motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 9) are DENIED as moot. It is further RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion for contempt (ECF No. 11) and his requests for prison staff to notarize or certify documents in ECF No. 7 be DENIED as moot and that his motion for a preliminary injunction concerning his medical care (ECF No. 6) be DENIED. Plaintiff is further DIRECTED to notify the Court of any change of address. Plaintiff's failure to fully and timely comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this action. There shall be no service of process in this case until further order of the Court.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to these recommendations with the Honorable C. Ashley Royal, Senior United States District Judge, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of this Recommendation. The parties may seek an extension of time in which to file written objections, provided a request for an extension is filed prior to the deadline for filing written objections. Failure to object in accordance with the provisions of § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district judge's order based on factual and legal conclusions to which no objection was timely made. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.