Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ABRAM v. CITY OF EARLE

October 17, 2005.

STACY ABRAM, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF EARLE, ARKANSAS, ET AL., Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES MOODY, District Judge

ORDER

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).

  IT IS SO ORDERED.

20051017

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.