Sandles v. Rios

Full title: JOHN ERIC SANDLES, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN RIOS, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Mar 23, 2006

Civil Action No. 06-cv-00355-BNB (D. Colo. Mar. 23, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 06-cv-00355-BNB.

March 23, 2006

ORDER

BOYD BOLAND, Magistrate Judge

On March 17, 2006, Plaintiff John Eric Sandles submitted a Letter to the Court. At the top of the Letter on Page One, Plaintiff notes Case Nos. 06-cv-00355-BNB and 06-cv-00182-BNB. Plaintiff is directed to refrain from filing a single document that is captioned with multiple civil action numbers. He also is instructed to file in a court action only that which pertains to the action.

In the instant action, on March 16, 2006, the Court entered an order construing the action as filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), as opposed to a habeas action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Plaintiff was directed to complete a Prisoner Complaint form and submit the form to the Court. Mr. Sandles also was instructed to plead exhaustion of administrative remedies and was informed that the claims appeared to be repetitive of the claims he has raised in Case No. 06-cv-00182-BNB.

Mr. Sandles' March 17 Letter contains information that more appropriately is included in a Complaint and should be presented to the Court on a Court-approved Prisoner Complaint form. Furthermore, even if the Court were to consider Plaintiff's Letter as an amended complaint, an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint. See Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc., 759 F.2d 504, 508 (5^th Cir. 1985); Cameron v. Fogarty, 705 F.2d 676 (2^rd Cir. 1983); London v. Coopers Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811 (9^th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff's attempt to amend in the March 17 Letter, therefore, is insufficient, as an amended complaint must include all the information requested on the Court-approved form.

Mr. Sandles also is directed to refrain from filing Letters with the Court that simply include additional claims. He is directed to comply with the Court's March 16 Order. Furthermore, if Mr. Sandles intends to file a request for a temporary restraining order he must name parties to the action in the request and assert specific reasons why a restraining order should be granted against the named parties. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall refrain from filing a single document that is captioned with multiple civil action numbers. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file in a court action only that which pertains to the action. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall refrain from filing Letters in the instant action that simply contain additional claims. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall comply with the Court's March 16, 2006, Order. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order he must name parties to the action in the request and assert specific reasons why a restraining order should be granted against the named parties.