Grooms v. Bell

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL JAMES GROOMS PLAINITFF ADC #128734

V. NO. 3:23-cv-00026-KGB-ERE

KEVIN BELL, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Michael James Grooms, an inmate at the Randolph County Jail (“County Jail”), filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Grooms’ current complaint1 names Melissa Sisco as the only Defendant. He sues her in both her individual and official capacity and seeks compensatory damages. Mr. Grooms alleges that: (1) Ms. Sisco has been deliberately indifferent to his need for medical treatment; (2) Ms. Sisco has failed to provide him specific medication; and (3) “[t]hey (the Jail) are not up to jail standards and have inmates on the floors with 2 inches or less in thickness of the mats.” Doc. 16 at 4. For screening purposes, Mr. Grooms has stated a medical deliberate indifference claim against Ms. Sisco in her individual capacity. Accordingly, service

1 Because Mr. Grooms’ original and first amended complaint were deficient, the Court provided him an opportunity to file a second amended complaint to clarify his constitutional claims. Docs. 12, 14. On May 30, 2023, Mr. Grooms filed his second amended complaint in this matter. Doc. 16. of that claim is now proper. The Court will address Mr. Grooms’ claims against Ms. Sisco in her official capacity, as well as his conditions of confinement claim, in a

separate Recommendation. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to prepare a summons for Defendant

Melissa Sisco. 2. The United States Marshal is directed to serve Defendant Sisco with a summons and a copy of the complaint, the amended complaint, and the second amended complaint (with any attachments) (Docs. 1, 13, 16), without requiring

prepayment of fees and costs or security. Service for Defendant Sisco should be attempted through the Randolph County Jail, 1510 Pace Road, Pocahontas, Arkansas 72455.

3. Because Mr. Grooms does not include Kevin Bell or the Doe Defendants as party Defendants in his second amended complaint, he has abandoned his claim against Defendant Bell and the Doe Defendants. The Clerk is instructed to terminate Kevin Bell and the Doe Defendants as party Defendants.2

2 The Court previously cautioned Mr. Grooms that an amended complaint, if filed, would supersede or replace the current complaint. See In re Atlas Lines, Inc. 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000) (an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal effect). The Court further instructed Mr. Grooms to make sure that his second amended complaint included all allegations relevant to the claim(s) he wants to pursue in this lawsuit. See Doc. 12. So Ordered | June 2023.

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE