Smith v. Madery

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

LARRY DAVID SMITH, Case No. 2:23-cv-12703

Plaintiff, Robert J. White v. United States District Judge

BRIAN MADERY, et al., Patricia T. Morris United States Magistrate Judge Defendants. /

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE COMPREHENSIVE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SETTING DEADLINE TO ANSWER FOR DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his constitutional rights. In broad terms, Plaintiff allegations concern reoccurring problems with his mail and being retaliated against by MDOC officials. (ECF No. 1, PageID.1‒2; ECF No. 8, PageID.157‒58). Defendants are all MDOC employees. (Id.). Plaintiff has already supplemented his complaint as a matter of right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). (ECF Nos. 4, 6). In her July 22, 2025 Report and Recommendation (R&R), the Undersigned advised Plaintiff “that if the relevant recommendations are adopted, the Undersigned intends to direct him to file a comprehensive first amended complaint that sets forth all relevant facts and surviving claims from the original complaint, the first

supplement, and the second supplement.” (ECF No. 48, PageID.525‒26). Specifically, the Undersigned recommended that Plaintiff be granted leave to further supplement his complaint “to the extent that his supplement seeks to add additional

instances of delayed mail.” (Id. at PageID.540‒41). The R&R has since been adopted. (ECF No. 49). Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to file a comprehensive first amended complaint—adhering to the above requirements as well as the general

rules for pleadings—on or before September 5, 2025. Defendants are REQUIRED to file either joint or individual answers on or before September 19, 2025. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file a timely first amended complaint may

result in a recommendation that the case be dismissed under the Court’s inherent authority to dismiss an action for a party’s failure to prosecute or obey a court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–33 (1962); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Mich. LR 42.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: August 13, 2025 s/PATRICIA T. MORRIS Patricia T. Morris United States Magistrate Judge