TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN DISTRICT, JUDGE.
Before the Court is remaining
On October 17, 2016, pro se prisoner plaintiff Luis Negron filed a voluminous complaint (ECF No. 1) against defendants Thomas Turco, III, Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, Thomas Dickhaut, Deputy Commissioner Department of Corrections, Kelly Ryan, Superintendent of MCI Shirley, Lois Russo, Superintendent of MCI Concord, Colletee Goguen, Superintendent of MCI Gardner, Abbe Nelligan, Deputy of Classification, and Luis Mendez, Internal Perimeter Commander. Along with his complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 3).
On October 17, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 11) On November 16, 2016, the Court allowed the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, assessed an initial filing fee, denied the motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice, and allowed the motion to amend the complaint. The amended complaint was docketed, and the exhibits to the complaint were incorporated by reference into the amended complaint. The plaintiff was ordered to notify the court prior to service of the complaint if he did not intend the exhibits to be incorporated into the amended complaint. No objection was filed.
On February 8, 2017, defendants Turco, Nelligan, Goguen, and Melendez filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 21, 2017, plaintiff opposed the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 46).
On April 14, 2017, with leave of court, defendants Turco, Nelligan, Goguen, and Melendez responded to the motion for preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 65).
On May 11, 2017 plaintiff filed motions for leave to file supplemental amended complaint and for leave to file a supplemental complaint. (ECF Nos. 69 and 70). The remaining defendants opposed the motions. (ECF Nos. 71 and 72).
At this stage of the proceedings, under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff "may amend [his] pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Similarly, "[o]n motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). The defendants oppose the motions to amend and supplement the complaint, referring to their motion to dismiss the action. One of the grounds raised in the motion to dismiss (and in their opposition to the motion to amend) is that the complaint and proposed amended complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court agrees in principle that the current complaint and proposed second amended complaint largely do not comply with basic pleading requirements of the Federal Rules. Instead, they are densely worded, rambling narratives concerning events spanning multiple institutions and persons, making it extremely difficult for the Court to discern the contours of the claims. It is not surprising that the defendants have had difficulty in culling the claims for purposes of their motion to dismiss. The difficulties with addressing the complaint and defendant's motion to dismiss are only compounded by plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of three of the defendants subsequent to the filing of the original motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, it is in the interest of justice to permit the plaintiff a
Accordingly, within 35 days of the date of this Memorandum and Order, the plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint — a stand-alone document- setting forth plausible claims upon which relief may be granted. The second amended complaint should focus on the legal claims against each defendant, and the factual basis for such claims. In other words, plaintiff should set forth at minimal facts as to who did what to whom, when, where, and why, in a non-conclusory manner. He should not assert claims collectively against the defendants, but should parcel out the claims against each defendant by name, separately, to the extent possible. Plaintiff should also not assert multiple causes of action against a defendant in one count; rather, he should identify separately each cause of action and the grounds therefore. The second amended complaint must stand on its own; it may not incorporate by reference other documents and will completely replace the prior complaints. The plaintiff may attach exhibits, but is not required to do so. He may not rely on previously filed exhibits by incorporating them by reference. Defendants shall thereafter have 35 days to respond to the second amended complaint.
In light of the Court's allowance in part, and denial in part, of the motions to amend and supplement the complaint, the motion to dismiss is denied as moot.
Because an amended complaint will be filed, and plaintiff apparently seeks to supplement his motion for a preliminary injunction in Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to file Supplemental Response to Defendants Opposition on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction ECF No. 68, the motion will be denied as moot, subject to refiling upon service of the amended complaint.
Plaintiff has made several motions relating to information he is seeking from the defendants. (ECF Nos. 51, 61 and 62). In light of the complaint being amended, the motions are denied without prejudice subject to re-filing after the defendants are served with the second amended complaint and defendants respond to the second amended complaint. To the extent that the defendants respond to the second amended complaint with a motion to dismiss, such
Plaintiff has renewed his motion for appointment of counsel claiming this matter is "complex," that he cannot afford counsel and has limited access to the law library. The Court may request an attorney to represent plaintiff if it finds that: (1) plaintiff is indigent and (2) exceptional circumstances exist such that the denial of counsel will result in a fundamental unfairness impinging on his due process rights.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby Ordered that: