United States District Court, D. Kansas
PATRICK C. LYNN, Plaintiff,
ANTHONY McCURRIE, et al., Defendants.
THOMAS MARTEN, U.S. District Judge.
Patrick C. Lynn, is a prisoner currently housed at El Dorado
Correctional Facility in El Dorado, Kansas
(“EDCF”). Plaintiff proceeds pro se and has paid
the filing fee in full. This matter is before the Court on
various motions filed by Plaintiff.
March 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed this civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various KDOC staff
members and Corizon employees alleging “23 criminal
batteries/excessive use of force in violation of
Plaintiff's 8th Amendment rights that occurred between
3/18/15 through 5/11/16”; deliberate indifference to
his life-threatening medical condition; and retaliation.
Plaintiff names ninety-seven defendants by name and an
additional fifteen John or Jane Doe defendants. At the time
of filing, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Hutchinson
Correctional Facility in Hutchinson, Kansas
(“HCF”). Plaintiff was transferred to the Lansing
Correctional Facility (“LCF”) around April 5,
2017. See Doc. 9. Plaintiff asserts that he is
transferred every 100 to 120 days under a rotation schedule
between LCF, HCF and EDCF.
17, 2017, the Court entered an Order (Doc. 19): finding that
Plaintiff is subject to the “three-strikes”
provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); finding that
Plaintiff failed to show that he is in imminent danger of
serious physical injury; denying Plaintiff's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3); and granting Plaintiff
until July 31, 2017, to submit the $400.00
filing fee. Plaintiff was transferred to the El Dorado
Correctional Facility in El Dorado, Kansas
(“EDCF”) on July 21, 2017. See Doc. 21.
The Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time to pay the
filing fee (Doc. 39); and the filing fee was paid on August
Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 44)
has filed a motion seeking leave to file a
“comprehensive consolidated” amended complaint.
(Doc. 44.) Plaintiff asks the Court to grant him forty-five
days in which to file his amended complaint. The Court grants
the motion. The Court therefore denies Plaintiff's
previous requests to amend the complaint or to add
supplemental claims. See Doc. 11 (Motion for
Meaningful Court Access Order to Properly Finish Remaining
Counts); Doc. 29 (Motion for Leave to Add Supplemental
Actionable Claims and Defendants); and Doc. 30 (Motion for
Leave to Amend Complaint).
order to add claims, significant factual allegations, or
change defendants, a plaintiff must submit a complete Amended
Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. An Amended
Complaint is not simply an addendum to the original
complaint, and instead completely supersedes it. Therefore,
any claims or allegations not included in the Amended
Complaint are no longer before the court. It follows that a
plaintiff may not simply refer to an earlier pleading, and
the Amended Complaint must contain all allegations and claims
that a plaintiff intends to pursue in the action, including
those to be retained from the original complaint. Plaintiff
must write the number of this case (17-3041-JTM-DJW) at the
top of the first page of his Amended Complaint and he must
name every defendant in the caption of the Amended Complaint.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Plaintiff should also
refer to each defendant again in the body of the complaint,
where he must allege facts describing the unconstitutional
acts taken by each defendant including dates, locations, and
circumstances. Plaintiff must allege sufficient additional
facts to show a federal constitutional violation.
must also follow Rules 20 and 18 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure when filing an Amended Complaint. FRCP Rule
20 governs permissive joinder of parties and pertinently
(2) Defendants. Persons . . . may
be joined in one action as defendants if:
(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly,
severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising
out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will
arise in the action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Rule 18(a) governs joinder of
claims and pertinently provides: “A party asserting a
claim . . . may join . . . as many claims as it has against
an opposing party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a). While joinder
is encouraged for purposes of judicial economy, the
“Federal Rules do not contemplate joinder of different
actions against different parties which present entirely
different factual and legal issues.” Zhu v.
Countrywide Realty Co., Inc., 160 F.Supp.2d 1210, 1225
(D. Kan. 2001) (citation omitted). The Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit held in George v. Smith that
under “the controlling principle” in Rule 18(a),
“[u]nrelated claims against different defendants belong
in different suits.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d