Murphy v. Alabama Department of Corrections (INMATE 2)

M.D. Alabama

Murphy v. Alabama Department of Corrections (INMATE 2)

DecidedSeptember 10, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00212

StatusUnknown

This text of Murphy v. Alabama Department of Corrections (INMATE 2) (Murphy v. Alabama Department of Corrections (INMATE 2)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Murphy v. Alabama Department of Corrections (INMATE 2), (M.D. Ala. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL MURPHY, ) AIS # 178043, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 3:25-CV-212-WKW ) [WO] ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiff Michael Murphy’s Motion for the Severance of Defendant, in which Plaintiff “moves this court to remove[] Catrina Robbins as a Defendant in this case.” (Doc. # 20.) The motion will be construed as an amendment to the complaint under Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In Perry v. Schumacher Group of Louisiana, 891 F.3d 954, 958 (11th Cir. 2018), the Eleventh Circuit observed that, while there are multiple ways for a plaintiff to dismiss part of an action, the simplest is to obtain leave to amend the complaint under Rule 15 to remove specific claims. Here, since no responsive pleading has been filed, Plaintiff has the right to amend as a matter of course, without needing to file a motion to amend. See Toenniges v. Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 502 F. App’x 888, 889 (11th Cir. 2012) (holding that a pro se prisoner retains the right to amend as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “so long as no responsive pleading has been filed”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. # 20) is CONSTRUED as an amendment to the complaint under Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) All Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Catrina Robbins are

DISMISSED without prejudice; (3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate Defendant Catrina Robbins as a party to this action; and (4) Plaintiff’s action remains pending as to his claims against Defendants

Alabama Department of Corrections, Pedehel P. Martin, Artavia Russell, and Yes Care Corp., and P. A. McAuthor. DONE this 10th day of September, 2025.

/s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL MURPHY, ) AIS # 178043, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 3:25-CV-212-WKW ) [WO] ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiff Michael Murphy’s Motion for the Severance of Defendant, in which Plaintiff “moves this court to remove[] Catrina Robbins as a Defendant in this case.” (Doc. # 20.) The motion will be construed as an amendment to the complaint under Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In Perry v. Schumacher Group of Louisiana, 891 F.3d 954, 958 (11th Cir. 2018), the Eleventh Circuit observed that, while there are multiple ways for a plaintiff to dismiss part of an action, the simplest is to obtain leave to amend the complaint under Rule 15 to remove specific claims. Here, since no responsive pleading has been filed, Plaintiff has the right to amend as a matter of course, without needing to file a motion to amend. See Toenniges v. Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 502 F. App’x 888, 889 (11th Cir. 2012) (holding that a pro se prisoner retains the right to amend as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “so long as no responsive pleading has been filed”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. # 20) is CONSTRUED as an amendment to the complaint under Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) All Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Catrina Robbins are

DISMISSED without prejudice; (3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate Defendant Catrina Robbins as a party to this action; and (4) Plaintiff’s action remains pending as to his claims against Defendants

Alabama Department of Corrections, Pedehel P. Martin, Artavia Russell, and Yes Care Corp., and P. A. McAuthor. DONE this 10th day of September, 2025.

/s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Murphy v. Alabama Department of Corrections (INMATE 2), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-alabama-department-of-corrections-inmate-2-almd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack