The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES MOODY, District Judge
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Application to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis and complaint brought against Defendants.
Pursuant to this Court's Order of August 25, 2005, Plaintiff was
given eleven (11) days in which to amend his complaint in
compliance with the order. Plaintiff was granted two separate
extensions in which to file his Amended Complaint, with the
latest due date being October 4, 2005. Plaintiff's third motion
for extension to file his Amended Complaint requests an
additional three days in which to file his amendment. He then
filed another Motion for Extension of Time on October 6, 2005,
seeking an extension until November 5, 2005, in which to file an
Amended Complaint. However, he filed an Amended Complaint on
October 6, 2005.
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does not comply with the Order in
that it remains impossible to determine: (1) what Plaintiff
alleges against the City of Earle, Arkansas, the members of the
city council, mayor, chief of police, city clerk, police officer,
James and Tina Steven, S & S Transport Sales, Ronald Gee, and C &
G Mobile Homes; (2) who owned the mobile home that Plaintiff
alleges was removed from his property; (3) how Plaintiff has been
treated differently based on his race; (4) how Plaintiff's Fifth,
Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendment rights were violated; and
(5) the specific allegations under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1985.
Further, Plaintiff sets forth new allegations in the Amended
Complaint which are included in case number 3:05 CV 164, Abram
v. City of Earle, Arkansas, et al., assigned to Judge George
Howard. The Court will not consider the added allegations that
are being litigated in another lawsuit.
Because Plaintiff is seeking leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Court may screen his complaint to determine
whether the action "is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted; or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief."
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). If any of these things are true, the Court may
dismiss the claim before service. Id.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's case is dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and pursuant to
this Court's Order of August 25, 2005, for failure to amend the
complaint as set forth above. The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis is denied as moot (#1).
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...