Hamilton v. Orr ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DAVID HAMILTON (#108298) CIVIL ACTION NO. VERSUS 21-199-JWD-SDJ JOHN ORR, ET AL. ORDER David Hamilton, who is representing himself and is confined at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana, instituted this action on or about April 8, 2021, against John Orr, Trent Baron, Luke Rheams, Omar Walker, and Kayla Wolf (“Defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Hamilton has alleged Orr used excessive force against him.2 Though Hamilton’s allegations against Orr are clear and supported, the allegations against the other Defendants require further development. Hamilton has not provided specific facts to support his failure to intervene claim against Luke Rheams and Trent Barton and has not provided sufficient details regarding his claims against Kayla Wolf and Omar Walker. Rather than outright dismissing these claims, the Court will provide Hamilton an opportunity to cure the deficiencies.3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint on the standardized § 1983 lawsuit form (the same form he used before), stating specific facts to support his claims. The Court will not require Plaintiff to restate his allegations against Orr; rather, Plaintiff must state with specificity his claims against Barton, Rheams, Walker, and Wolf, as more fully discussed below. Plaintiff shall list each Defendant 1 R. Doc. 1. 2 R. Doc. 1. 3 See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8 (5th Cir. 1994). See also, e.g., In re Am. Airlines, Inc., Privacy Litig., 370 F. Supp. 2d 552, 567-68 (N.D. Tex. 2005) (“[D]istrict courts often afford plaintiffs at least one opportunity to cure pleading deficiencies before dismissing a case, unless it is clear that the defects are incurable or the plaintiffs advise the court that they are unwilling or unable to amend in a manner that will avoid dismissal.”). individually and explain the acts or omissions of each Defendant that Plaintiff believes violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff is placed on notice that his claims against Rheams, Barton, Walker, and Wolf may be dismissed if he fails to provide the Court with the required information. Plaintiff’s amended complaint must expressly state the following: 1) State all facts that lead you to the conclusion that Rheams and Barton knew Orr was going to spray you with chemical agent4 2) Where were Rheams and Barton relative to Orr and you; 3) How quickly did Orr spray you; 4) Provide any other facts that demonstrate Barton and Rheams had an opportunity to intervene; 5) State, with specificity, all actions of Omar Walker that you contend violated your constitutional rights; 6) Is the only allegation against Walker that he did not permit you to shower; and 7) State with particularity the treatment you received from Kayla Wolf, including how your injuries were treated, when you received follow up treatment, and what injuries, if any, you sustained as a result of a delay in follow up treatment. 4 Hamilton states that “Barton and Rheams anticipated defendant Orr to spray plaintiff,” but he does not provide any facts to support this conclusory statement. R. Doc. 1, p. 9. Though usually an amended complaint takes the place of previous complaints,5 the Court will consider Plaintiff’s amended complaint as incorporating the allegations of his original complaint. Plaintiff is instructed to place the cause number “3:21cv199” on the amended complaint and on all documents that he files in this lawsuit. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on October 26, 2021. S SCOTT D. JOHNSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 Clark v. Tarrant County, Texas, 798 F.2d 736, 740 (5th Cir. 1986).