United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
ORDER TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Katherine P. Nelson United States Magistrate Judge.
Joe Loyde, an Alabama prison inmate, proceeding pro
se and informa pauperis, filed a § 1983
complaint against Defendants, which was docketed by the Court
on May 25, 2018. (See Doc. 1). Defendants have
answered the suit and filed a special report (docs. 12, 13),
which the Court converted to a Motion for Summary Judgment on
November 2, 2018. (Doc. 14). For the reasons discussed
herein, the Court hereby withdraws its Order
Converting Defendants' Answer and Special Report to a
Motion for Summary Judgment and, further,
ORDERS Plaintiff to amend his Complaint.
Loyde is suing Lieutenant Deveron Brown and Lieutenant Ruby
Salter for, inter alia, failing to protect him from
being attacked by inmate members of the Gangster Disciples
Gang while imprisoned at Holman Correctional Facility. (Doc.
1 at 5). The Complaint specifies that the attack incident
occurred on July 18, 2018. (Id.). Defendants deny
all allegations against them related to an incident on July
18, 2018. (Docs. 12, 13). Defendants maintain that they
possess no knowledge of an inmate attack occurring on July
18, 2018, and further affirm that no incident reports, duty
officer reports, body charts or disciplinary reports exist
for such an incident on July 18, 2018. (Docs. 13-1; 13-2).
Defendants, however, do submit an incident report, body
chart, and multiple medical records (with similar facts and
descriptions as laid out by Plaintiff in his complaint) dated
July 18, 2017. It is, therefore,
apparent from review of the parties' pleadings that
Plaintiff inadvertently included the wrong incident date in
his Complaint; however, Defendants, seemingly, refuse to
overlook the scrivener's error in their responding
affidavits. (See Docs. 13-1; 13-2).
considering a pro se litigant's allegations, the
court holds them to a more lenient standard than those of an
attorney, Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d
1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998), but it does not have
"license . . . to rewrite an otherwise deficient
pleading [by a pro se litigant] in order to sustain
an action." GJR Investments v. Cnty. of Escambia,
Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998),
overruled on other grounds by Randall v. Scott, 610
F.3d 701, 710 (11th Cir. 2010) (relying on Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868
(2009)). Thus, the general rule applied to pro se
plaintiffs in this Circuit is that "[w]here a more
carefully drafted complaint might state a claim, a plaintiff
must be given at least one chance to amend the complaint
before the district court dismisses the action with
prejudice." Woldeab v. DeKalb Cty. Bd. of
Educ., 885 F.3d 1289, 1290 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting
Bank v. Pitt, 928 F.2d 1108, 1112 (11th Cir.
Plaintiff is ORDERED on or before
May 20, 2019, to file an amended
complaint on this Court's § 1983 complaint form that
contains a clear and precise statement of the allegations
against Defendants Deveron Brown and Ruby Salter, including
the date of the incident and all supporting facts. The
Amended Complaint will supersede the original Complaint (Doc.
1). See Fritz v. Standard Life Ins. Co., 676 F.2d
1356, 1358 (11th Cir. 1982). Plaintiff, therefore, should not
rely on his prior pleadings. Additionally, the amended
complaint must contain all of the allegations with respect to
the claim to which Plaintiff wants Defendants to respond. No.
new issues or unrelated claims may be asserted in the amended
is advised that a related claim is one that arises “out
of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2).
Defendants may be joined if they have an interest in the
transaction or occurrence and there is a common question of
law or fact among the defendants in the action. If the claims
are not related to the same incident or issue, “[i]t is
necessary for Plaintiff to file a separate complaint for each
claim[.]” Potts v. Pike Cnty. Sheriff's
Office, No. 2:09-CV-974-ID, 2009 WL 3747213, at *1 (M.D.
Ala. Nov. 5, 2009) (unpublished). The failure to an amended
complaint that complies with Rule 20(a)'s requirement
that a complaint's claims arise from the same transaction
or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences will
result in the dismissal without prejudice of this action.
Skillern v. Georgia Dep't of Corr. Comm'r,
379 Fed.Appx. 859, 860 (11th Cir. 2010) (unpublished)
(affirming the action's dismissal without prejudice for
the prisoner's failure to obey the court's order to
file a complaint that complied with Rule 20(a) when his
claims against defendants did not arise “out of the
same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
Plaintiff is advised that his amended complaint must be a
“short and plain statement” showing that he is
entitled to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). The complaint form is
ORDERED to be completed in its entirety, and
if extra space is needed, additional pages may be attached
provided that they follow the complaint form's format.
See Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir.
1988) (finding that a fifteen, single-spaced typed complaint
was not a “short and plain statement”).
amended 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. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). A plaintiff must plead: 1) “factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged[, ]” id., and 2) “[f]actual
allegations . . . [that] raise a right to relief above the
speculative level” and “possess enough heft to
‘sho[w] that the pleader is entitled to
relief.'” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 (2007) (second brackets in original).
Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at
Plaintiff's allegations must show a causal connection
between each defendant's actions, orders, customs, and
policies and a deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional
rights in order to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Zatler v. Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397, 401
(11th Cir. 1986); Williams v. Bennett, 689 F.2d
1370, 1380 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 932
(1983). Failure to comply with this Order within the
prescribed time or to notify the Court of a change in address
will result in the dismissal of this action for failure to
prosecute and to obey the Court's order.
light of this Order, the Court hereby
WITHDRAWS its previous, November 2, 2018,
Order Converting the Defendants' Answer and
Special Report into a Motion for Summary Judgment.
Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a §
1983 complaint form for his use.
 Notably, Plaintiff's suit was
filed with the Court almost two months before the incident
date provided in the ...