Summary
dismissing an action with prejudice after a pro se litigant was instructed to file a complaint with a signature and that party failed to follow the court's instruction
Summary of this case from Fireman's Insurance Company of Newark v. HerbertOpinion
No. 2:00cv805, 2:01cv780, 2:01cv892
March 11, 2002
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF: Clinton Bedell, Pro Se, #284146, Greensville Correctional Center, Jarratt, VA.
ORDER
Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate, has brought three pro se actions in this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to redress alleged violations of his constitutional rights. The action numbers are 2:00cv805, 2:01cv780, and 2:01cv892. All three actions deal with the same set of facts and essentially the same claims. In two of these actions, plaintiff has filed voluminous documents. The court has sorted through all the documents and has determined that because of the similarity and ineffectuality of plaintiff's filings in these actions, only one action shall proceed. The court shall allow plaintiff to proceed with action 201cv780. Accordingly, plaintiff is ADVISED that any documents pertaining to the claims that are before the court are to be filed in action 2:01cv780 from this point forward. Plaintiff is ADVISED to write "Action No. 2:01cv780" on the first page of each document he submits to the court. Plaintiffs other actions are closed for the reasons explained below.
Action 2:00cv805 was dismissed by this court on May 1, 2001 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff appealed this court's dismissal of his claim to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit dismissed plaintiffs appeal on September 12, 2001. This court received notice from the Supreme Court of the United States that a petition for writ of certiorari had been filed. To date, that Court has not rendered a decision on whether certiorari will be granted.
Plaintiff filed action 2:01cv780 on October 19, 2001. The court noted that plaintiff makes the same claims he made in civil action 2:00cv805. In the listing of defendants in the complaint, plaintiff named five defendants and added the words "see memorandum IIa, IIc and prior complaint parties named in Brief v. Greensville, etal., (Declaratory)." Plaintiff was advised that action number 2:01cv780 was a wholly separate action from action 2:00cv805. Plaintiff was cautioned that he may not simply resubmit documents and portions of documents which he previously submitted in action 2:00cv805. However, plaintiff has continued to file motions, briefs, and other documents in action 2:01cv780 that are photocopies of submissions made in action 2:00cv805, with additional notes and case law scribbled in the margin. Despite the court's clarification that the actions are separate, plaintiff has requested on several occasions to merge action 2:00cv805 into 2:01cv780.
Plaintiff named Defendants Ron Angelone, the Interstate Compact Contract, Greensville, VT.D.O.C., and VA.D.O.C. Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint that he submitted at the same time as the complaint. The amended complaint additionally named John Gorczyk as a defendant. To date, these are the only named defendants in action 2:01cv780.
On November 16, 2001, plaintiff filed action 2:01cv892 by his submission of a document entitled "Diversity Issue Supplemental Amended Complaint" ("Complaint") naming fifty-three (53) defendants; plaintiff simultaneously submitted a petition to proceed in forma pauperis. On January 7, 2002, the court advised plaintiff that it appeared to the court that he intended to maintain two separate actions because action 2:01cv892 contained additional defendants. The court also informed plaintiff that the Complaint did not contain an original signature and would not be considered by the court unless plaintiff resubmitted it with an original signature. Plaintiff was warned that failure to resubmit the Complaint with an original signature would result in dismissal of action 2:01cv892. In the order, plaintiff was also directed to inform the court whether he wished to merge action number 2:01cv892 into 2:01cv780 because the claims appeared to be the same. Plaintiff was warned that in either case, he must resubmit the Complaint with an original signature.
Although it is partly handwritten and partly photocopied, plaintiff wrote action 2:00cv805 on this Complaint; this is the action that was dismissed in 2001.
Plaintiff responded on January 23, 2002, by filing two sets of documents. The first set of documents includes photocopies of two orders entered by this court. The first is a photocopy of the January 7, 2002 order entered in action 2:01cv892. Under the action number of that order, plaintiff has written small arrows and the words, "Court Clerk please merge above [Action No. 2:01cv892] into No. 2:01-cv-780 as requested Oct 2001 and again Dec 2001." The second is a photocopy of the final order dismissing action 2:00cv805, entered June 8, 2001. Under the action number of that order, plaintiff has similarly written small arrows and the words, "merge above [Action No. 2:00cv8051 into No. 2:01-cv-780 as requested Aug 2001 and again Oct 2001."
The second set of documents contains, among other things, a photocopied document entitled "Diversity Issue Supplemental Amended Complaint." Although plaintiff has given his original signature on many pages of the submission, it is not an exact copy of the Complaint filed in action 2:01cv892. The first twenty-three (23) pages are similar, but not identical, to the Complaint filed in action 2:01cv892. However, the forty or fifty attached pages do not correspond to the Complaint filed in action 2:01cv892. In addition, the action number listed throughout the document is 2:00cv805, the action that the court dismissed for failure to grieve.
Throughout the document, plaintiff has added to the photocopied pages, "Court please merge action 2:00-cv-805 and 2:01-cv-892 into 2:01-cv-780."
Because plaintiffs submission of the "Diversity Issue Supplemental Amended Complaint" is not a duplicate of the Complaint he submitted in action 2:01cv892, the court will not accept the submission as fulfilling the original signature requirement in that action. Accordingly, the Complaint in action 2:01cv892 is still filed subject to defect and will not be considered by this court. The court CONSTRUES plaintiffs "Diversity Issue Supplemental Amended Complaint" as a motion to amend his complaint in action 2:01cv780.
Plaintiff has made abundantly clear his intention that action numbers 2:01cv892 and 2:01cv780 be merged. However, because the claims are so related, merging would be redundant. Accordingly, action 2:01cv892 is DISMISSED for failure to comply with the original signature requirement of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also declines to reopen action 2:00cv805 and merge it into action 2:01cv780. In addition, plaintiff continues to seek relief from this court's dismissal by pursuing his appeal to the Supreme Court. That Court has not yet had an opportunity to rule on plaintiffs claim. Accordingly, plaintiffs motion to merge the three cases in their entirety is DENIED. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to cease filing legal argument after argument until such time as the court directs the submission of such documents; plaintiff should particularly cease filing documents previously filed in action 2:00cv805 whose arguments are not timely in action 2:01cv780. Plaintiff is ADMONISHED that if he continues to file such documents, the court will direct the Clerk to return them to him and will not consider them. Plaintiffs propensity to file lengthy motions that serve no useful purpose and excessively long legal arguments that quote extensively from cases serves only to waste this court's time and resources, ultimately delaying the resolution of plaintiffs case.
With respect to the dismissal of action 2:01cv892, this order is a final order. Accordingly, plaintiff is ADVISED that he may appeal from this final order by forwarding a written notice of appeal to the Clerk of the United States District Court, United States Courthouse, 600 Granby Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510. Said written notice must be received by the Clerk within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. If plaintiff wishes to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is to be submitted to the Clerk, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 1100 E. Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
If plaintiff believes that action 2:01cv780 lacks a claim upon which he wishes to proceed, he may seek leave to amend. In addition, if plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint in action 2:01cv780 to add defendants, he may so move. Plaintiff is ADVISED that he must list each defendant separately and give a brief, factual explanation of how he believes each defendant violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to refrain from submitting legal arguments and citations. Plaintiff needonly give a brief statement of facts telling the court what happened that led to the deprivation of his constitutional rights and showing each defendant's involvement.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that in all future correspondence with the court, plaintiff should include the case name and action number assigned to his complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff must write action number 2:01cv780 on each submission, as this is his only active case. Failure to do so will slow the processing of his submissions.
In conclusion, plaintiffs motion to merge the three cases in their entirety is DENIED. Action 2:01cv892 is DISMISSED for failure to comply with the original signature requirement of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the plaintiff
IT IS SO ORDERED.