Opinion
Civil Action 2:11-cv-1090
04-23-2013
MARK EDWARD HURST, Plaintiff, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, et al., Defendants.
Judge Smith
Magistrate Judge King
OPINION AND ORDER
Upon unopposed motion and for good cause shown, plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 58, is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion indicates that it is intended to serve as an amended complaint. See id. at p. 3. The Clerk is therefore DIRECTED to remove Doc. No. 58 from the Court's pending motions list and to indicate on the docket that Doc. No. 58 is both an amended complaint and a motion to amend the complaint.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that he must submit copies of the amended complaint, summonses, and Marshal service forms for defendants John Gardner and Andrew Eddy, M.D. The fact that plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis does not entitle him to free copies of his filings. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See also Anderson v. Gillis, 236 F. App'x 738, 739 (3rd Cir. 2007) (citing Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d 661 (6th Cir. 1964)); Thomas v. Croft, No. 2:10-cv-74, 2010 WL 1629628, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 21, 2010).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if plaintiff submits copies of the amended complaint, summonses and Marshal service forms for each defendant, the United States Marshal shall serve by certified mail upon defendants a copy of the amended complaint filed herein and a copy of this Order.
Each defendant is ORDERED to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint within forty-five (45) days after being served with a copy of the amended complaint and a summons.
____________
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge