Filed: Apr. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 11, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHN A. ROSS , District Judge . The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs supplemental filing, which includes an inmate grievance form and an informal resolution request. (Doc. No. 47) To the extent Plaintiff is seeking to add a claim, he is advised that the Court does not allow amendments by interlineation and supplements. If Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint, he must file a motion to amend and include a proposed pleading that includes each and every claim he wishes
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHN A. ROSS , District Judge . The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs supplemental filing, which includes an inmate grievance form and an informal resolution request. (Doc. No. 47) To the extent Plaintiff is seeking to add a claim, he is advised that the Court does not allow amendments by interlineation and supplements. If Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint, he must file a motion to amend and include a proposed pleading that includes each and every claim he wishes ..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN A. ROSS, District Judge.
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs supplemental filing, which includes an inmate grievance form and an informal resolution request. (Doc. No. 47) To the extent Plaintiff is seeking to add a claim, he is advised that the Court does not allow amendments by interlineation and supplements. If Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint, he must file a motion to amend and include a proposed pleading that includes each and every claim he wishes to bring. Plaintiff is cautioned that the filing of an amended pleading replaces the original, and claims that are not realleged are deemed abandoned. See Popoalii v. Correctional Medical Services, 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008).
Plaintiff has also moved for appointment of counsel. (Doc. No. 42) A review of the file indicates that Plaintiff first requested appointment of counsel on October 13, 2017. (Doc. No. 25) His request was considered in light of relevant factors, see Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986) and Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984), and denied without prejudice on October 17, 2017. (Doc. No. 26) Upon consideration, the Court will deny Plaintiffs latest request for appointment of counsel. The Court finds nothing in the record to cause it to reconsider its previous order denying Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel. Again, this case is neither factually nor legally complex. Moreover, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he can adequately present his claims to the Court.
Lastly, with respect to Defendants' motion to compel (Doc. No. 32), the Court will direct Plaintiff to properly sign the attached medical authorization and provide Defendants with the original, signed authorization. In all other respects the Court finds that Plaintiff has made a good faith effort to comply with Defendants' discovery requests and denies Defendants' motion to compel without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Compel (32] is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint Counsel (42] is DENIED without prejudice.
