Lungaho v. Franks

• Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
• Decided: May 7, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00257
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

MUJERA BENJAMIN LUNG’AHO PLAINTIFF Reg. # 08572-509

v. 3:23CV00257-DPM-JTK

STEVEN FRANKS, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER On February 21, 2024, United States District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. directed Mujera Benjamin Lung’aho (“Plaintiff”) to file a Second Amended Complaint by March 21, 2024. (Doc. No. 13). The Order was sent to Plaintiff at his address of record, but the letter was returned as undeliverable. (Doc. No. 14). Several days after the mail to Plaintiff was returned, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address. (Doc. No. 15). On March 22, 2024, Judge Marshall’s Order was sent to Plaintiff at his updated address at the Forrest City Medium Correctional Institution. While the mail sent to Plaintiff at his updated address has not been returned, the Court is concerned that the second mailing did not reach Plaintiff. As such, the Court will give Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to file a Second Amended Complaint. If Plaintiff wishes to file a Second Amended Complaint, when preparing the document Plaintiff should follow the instructions set out in Judge Marshall’s February 21, 2024 Order (Doc. No. 13). Plaintiff is cautioned that a Second Amended Complaint will render his earlier pleadings without legal effect.1 Only claims properly set out in the Second Amended Complaint will be

1 “An amended complaint ‘ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.’” In Home Health, Inc. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 101 F.3d 600, 603 (8th Cir. allowed to proceed. Plaintiff is further cautioned that if he does not submit a Second Amended Complaint, this case may be dismissed without prejudice. FED. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Loc. R. 5.5(c)(2).? The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Plaintiffa copy of docket entry no. 13 along with a copy of this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7" day of May, 2024.

JEROME T. KEARNEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1996), quoting International Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 556 F.2d 665, 668 (2d Cir. 1994) (other citations omitted). ? Plaintiff is hereby notified of his responsibility to comply with the Local Rules of the Court, including Rule 5.5(c)(2), which states, in part: “If any communication from the Court to a pro se Plaintiff is not responded to within thirty (30) days, the case may be dismissed without prejudice. Any party proceeding pro se shall be expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”