Brown v. Clemons-Abdullah

District Court, E.D. Missouri·Decided May 9, 2024·No. 4:23-cv-01082·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

ANTHONY L. BROWN, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:23-CV-1082 RLW ) JENNIFER CLEMONS-ABDULLAH, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Anthony L. Brown, Jr.’s amended complaint. For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to file a second amended complaint. Background As fully explained in this Court’s prior Memorandum and Order of December 5, 2023 (ECF No. 10), Plaintiff’s original 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint asserted unrelated conditions-of- confinement claims against 12 defendants. In addition, the complaint was unnecessarily long and contained a great deal of unnecessary information, and it violated Rules 8(a) and 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff made those problems worse by filing a supplemental document containing additional claims, and asking the Court to incorporate them into the complaint. The Court conducted the initial review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and gave Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint. The Court gave Plaintiff clear and specific instructions about how to prepare the amended complaint, and clearly explained the requirements of Rules 8(a), 10(b), 18(a), and 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The First Amended Complaint Plaintiff responded to the Court’s Memorandum and Order by filing a first amended complaint against not 12 but 14 defendants. In setting forth his claims for relief, Plaintiff describes events that occurred from approximately May 27, 2023 through approximately

December 17, 2023. It appears most of Plaintiff’s claims stem from alleged denials of contact lens supplies and medical care for an eye condition. However, despite the Court’s prior instructions, it appears Plaintiff also attempts to assert claims stemming from allegedly excessive force, falling down the stairs, confinement to a cell with 24-hour illumination, failure to respond to grievances, and a refusal to move him from top-tier accommodations, among others. Also, Plaintiff’s allegations are not simple, concise, and direct, and his claims are not stated in numbered paragraphs that are limited to a single set of circumstances. The first amended complaint includes a great deal of unnecessary detail, and it is often unclear exactly what allegations Plaintiff intends to assert against which defendants. For example, Plaintiff writes:

On December 17, 2023 I woke up with mucus build up and eye pain because I still had my contacts in my eyes. When I pressed my intercom CO Whitt told me that Lt. Adams and Lt. Livingston-Ward said they put me on lockdown and that I couldn’t go to medical. I asked him what a lockdown had to do with my medical care and asked him to call the captain on duty. I explained that I was in pain but he kept telling me they said no. I had to throw my lunch tray on the floor just to get the whiteshirt in the unit Lt. Borders, Lt. Adams, and Lt. Chapman came to my cell door and I told Lt. Borders that Lt. Adams and Livingston-Ward were retaliating we keep getting into verbal altercations because they always take me to medical in the morning around 11 or later so I won’t be able to utilize my rec time with poor vision. They still didn’t take me to medical. Nurse Hatcher said she put it in my journal that she called for me but was told I was on lockdown. Since I moved back to 5b writ pod I’ve been forced to sleep with my contacts September 10th, 11th, 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 20th, 24th, 26th, 27th, 29th, October 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 17th, 18th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 27th, 30th, 31st, November 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 16th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 30th, December 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th causing a severe damage in my vision. (ECF No. 11 at 16). Also, Plaintiff often lists a group of defendants and then makes general allegations of wrongdoing against them. For example, Plaintiff writes: Around August 5, 2023 the control panel in medical went out causing the two big light fixtures in med room 1 and 4 to stay on for 24 hours of the day. I complained to every nurse in medical, every supervisor that came in medical including Clemons-Abdullah, Darnel Speer, Tammy Ross, Marilyn Earvin, and Unit Manager Brock, that the constant illumination was giving me migraines, I was having light sensitivity and suffering from sleep deprivation. No one would move me.

Id. at 15. Discussion Like the original complaint, the first amended complaint asserts multiple unrelated claims against multiple defendants. As fully explained in this Court’s prior order, a plaintiff may join multiple defendants in one action only if he asserts a right to relief against them that arises from the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and presents common questions of law or fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Plaintiff’s first amended complaint violates this rule. In addition, Plaintiff’s allegations are not simple, concise, and direct, as required by Rule 8(a), and are not set forth in numbered paragraphs that are limited to a single set of circumstances, as required by Rule 10(b). As a result, to figure out what Plaintiff’s actual claims are against each of the 14 defendants, the Court would have to examine the first amended complaint in great depth and then attempt to interpret it, to determine what Plaintiff is actually asserting against each named defendant. This creates an undue burden for the Court which it is not required to undertake, as the Rules are intended to avoid placing such a burden on the Court. Plaintiff’s practice of grouping defendants together and generally asserting wrongdoing also violates Rule 8, as it fails to provide adequate notice of the grounds for the claims made against each defendant. Because Plaintiff is representing himself, the Court will give him one more opportunity to amend his complaint. Plaintiff is advised that the second amended complaint will replace the

original and first amended complaints entirely. See In re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litigation, 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005) (“It is well-established that an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal effect”). Plaintiff must type or neatly print the second amended complaint on the Court’s prisoner civil rights complaint form, which will be provided to him. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.06(A) (“All actions brought by self-represented plaintiffs or petitioners should be filed on Court- provided forms where applicable.”). In the “Caption” section of the complaint form, Plaintiff should write the name of the defendant he intends to sue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Plaintiff must avoid naming anyone as a defendant unless that person is directly related to his claim. Plaintiff must also specify the

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Brown v. Clemons-Abdullah, (E.D. Mo. 2024).

Brown v. Clemons-Abdullah (Brown v. Clemons-Abdullah) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Samvel Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
760 F.3d 843 (Eighth Circuit, 2014)
Mark Neubauer v. FedEx Corporation
849 F.3d 400 (Eighth Circuit, 2017)
Madewell v. Roberts
909 F.2d 1203 (Eighth Circuit, 1990)