Summary
dismissing complaint that is "replete with so much irrelevant information that the Court is unable to determine the precise nature of [plaintiff's] claims"
Summary of this case from Dixon v. Metro Nashville Police Dep'tOpinion
No. 1:10-cv-206.
December 17, 2010
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The court is in receipt of a pro se civil rights complaint with over one hundred pages of exhibits; a sixty-five page supplement; an eleven-page supplement; and a thirty-eight page amended complaint with over two hundred pages of exhibits, filed by Antonio T. Smith ("Smith") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (Court File No. 2, 4, 11, 13). These documents are disorganized and virtually indecipherable. In addition, Smith, who was an inmate at Morgan County Correctional Complex in Wartburg, Tennessee when he filed this complaint but has since been released, filed a prisoner in forma pauperis application (Court File No. 1)
For the reasons explained below, Smith will be required to file a non-prisoner in forma pauperis application and a properly completed § 1983 complaint.
I. In Forma Pauperis Application
Plaintiff was incarcerated when he originally filed this complaint but has since been released. Therefore, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act the Court must determine Plaintiff's current ability to pay the filing fee like any non-prisoner. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). Plaintiff must tender the full filing fee of $350.00 or file a legible and complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff the documents necessary to apply for in forma pauperis status (non-prisoner) and a copy of this memorandum and order by mail.
Plaintiff SHALL have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to pay the full filing fee or to submit the necessary documents. Plaintiff is hereby NOTIFIED that if he fails to fully comply with this Order within the time required, the Court SHALL presume Plaintiff is not a pauper and dismiss the case for want of prosecution. Even if Plaintiff tenders the filing fee after the dismissal, the case is not to be reinstated to the District Court's active docket.
II. Complaint
Pro se pleadings filed in civil rights cases are liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982); Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991). However, pro se status does not exempt the plaintiff from the requirement that he comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law. Hulsey v. State of Texas, 929 F.2d 168, 171 (5th Cir. 1991); Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981). Pro se plaintiffs must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . ." LRL Properties v. Portage Metro Housing Authority, 55 F.3d 1097, 1104 (6th Cir. 1995). The complaint must give the defendants fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996); Gazette v. City of Pontiac, 41 F.3d 1061, 1064 (6th Cir. 1994). "In practice, `a . . . complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.'" Lillard, 76 F.3d at 726 (citations omitted).
Taken as a whole, Smith's complaint, supplements, and amended complaint comprise a lengthy (over four hundred pages), disorganized compilation of hand-written and xeroxed documents which possibly contain some alleged injustices. This compilation includes a large volume of irrelevant information, copies of newspaper articles, Tennessee statutes, and lists of cases. The precise nature of his claims are indecipherable and the complaint and amendments are disorganized and verbose. Smith drafted his complaint in complete disregard of the principle that each claim for relief should be separate and pled with clarity and precision so it is possible to determine what the plaintiff is claiming. See Rule 8(a), 8(d), 8(e), and Rule 10(b) of the Fed.R.Civ.P.; Cramer v. State of Florida, 117 F.3d a1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997); Anderson v. District Bd. Of Trustees of Cent. Fla Community College, 77 F. 3d 364, 366-367 (11th Cir. 1996). As previously stated, Smith has filed over four hundred pages of pleadings and documents. This type of rambling, disorganized, undecipherable pleading is unacceptable and places "an intolerable toll on the [C]ourt's docket, leads to unnecessary . . . discovery, and impose[s] unwarranted expense on the litigants, the [C]ourt, and the [C]ourt's . . . personnel and resources." Cramer, 117 F.3d at 1263.
This complaint is incomprehensible and replete with so much irrelevant information that the Court is unable to determine the precise nature of Smith's claims. This Court is required to screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and § 1915(e). Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) provides that the Court must dismiss a case at any time if the Court determines that it is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because the Court is unable to discern what claim(s) Smith is raising, it is unable to screen Smith's complaint, supplements, and amendment. Although the Court is inclined to strike the complaint, supplements, and amendment, on its' own initiative pursuant to Rule 12(f)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it will not do so in an effort to prevent any statute of limitations issue.
From a review of the file and the numerous papers, it appears that Smith has attempted to raise an excessive force claim. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Smith a complaint for violation of civil rights. Smith is DIRECTED to file an amended complaint. Smith SHALL replead and file his case on the form complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.
Smith is to re-plead his case in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Smith SHALL organize and clearly state each claim and identify the defendant or defendants he is suing, specifying the unconstitutional conduct in which he alleges each defendant engaged. To be perfectly clear, Smith is to identify each alleged unconstitutional act and identify each perpetrator of each alleged unconstitutional act and submit that in his amended complaint. Smith may submit a 25-page brief along with his form § 1983 complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.
Smith is NOTIFIED the amended complaint and brief that he is to file within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order shall replace his original complaint and exhibits, all of his supplements, and his previously filed amended complaint and exhibits. Thus, to be perfectly clear, the complaint and brief to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of this order will supercede all of Smith's previously filed complaints, briefs, supplements, amendments, and exhibits. See B H Medical, L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc., 526 F.3d 257, 167 n. 8 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Drake v. City of Detroit, No. 06-1817, 2008 WL 482283, at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 21, 2008) (stating that a prior "complaint is a nullity, because an amended complaint supercedes all prior complaints"). Thus, only the amended complaint filed within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order will be considered by the Court and the parties.
Smith is further ORDERED to inform the Court immediately of any address change. Failure to provide a correct address to this Court within ten (10) days following any change of address will result in the dismissal of this action.
SO ORDERED