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.

Brown v. Crittenden County Sheriff's Dep't

June 25, 2007

JEFFERY BROWN, ADC #85075 PLAINTIFF
v.
CRITTENDEN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS



ORDER

Defendants removed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action (docket entry #1) and paid the filing fee in full. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, had submitted a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with the Crittenden County Circuit Court, but that motion is not part of the record that was removed to the District Court.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") requires prisoner plaintiffs who wish to proceed in forma pauperis in federal court to submit a proper and complete application, along with a calculation sheet prepared and signed by an authorized officer of the correctional facility where he or she is being held. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court, he is directed to file an application within thirty days of the entry date of this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff an in forma pauperis application, along with a copy of this Order.

Defendants have filed a motion to clarify which of Plaintiff's complaints they should answer. (Docket Entry #5) Federal courts are required to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

When this case was removed to federal court, the file included three different complaints, each bringing different claims and naming different defendants. None of the complaints includes a request for relief. On this record, it is unclear what claims Plaintiff intends to pursue against which Defendants. Thus, it is impossible for the Court to screen the complaint as required under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Likewise, it is impossible for Defendants to frame a proper answer or other response.

Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Clarify (docket entry #5) is GRANTED. Defendants are excused from answering or otherwise responding to any of the complaints (docket entries #2, #3, and #4) currently filed with the Court. Plaintiff is ordered to file an amended complaint within 30 days of entry of this Order. That amended complaint will supersede all previously filed complaints. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff must:

(1) specifically name each Defendant whom he intends to sue; (2) state specific facts explaining how each named Defendant acted to deny Plaintiff his rights; (3) state whether each Defendant is sued in an individual or official capacity, or both; (4) state whether he filed a grievance based on the facts presented in the complaint; and (5) state the specific relief requested.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of June, 2007.

20070625

© 1992-2007 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.