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.

GRIFFIN v. SPILLER

October 17, 2005.

HORACE J. GRIFFIN, Plaintiff,
v.
BETSY SPILLER, CAPTAIN LYERIA, GUY D. PIERCE, and VICKIE GRIFFIN, Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: DONALD WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on:
1. The Motion to Amend filed by the Plaintiff, Horace J. Griffin, on June 2, 2005 (Doc. 27),
2. The "Motion of Officials Misconduct" filed by Griffin on June 2, 2005 (Doc. 28),
3. The Motion to Strike Amended Complaint filed by the Defendants, Betsy Spiller and Vickie Griffin, on July 11, 2005 (Doc. 31),
4. The Motions to Stay Filing of Responsive Pleading filed by Spiller and Griffin on July 11, 2005 (Doc. 32),
5. The Motion for Service of Process filed by Griffin on July 21, 2005 (Doc. 35),
6. The Motion to Compel filed by Griffin on August 17, 2005 (Doc. 37),
7. The Motion to Strike Amended Complaint filed by the Defendant, Guy D. Pierce, on August 23, 2005 (Doc. 38),
8. The Motions to Stay Filing of Responsive Pleading filed by Pierce on August 23, 2005 (Doc. 39),
9. The Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer to Amended Complaint filed by the Defendant, Captain Lyeria, on September 20, 2005 (Doc. 40), 10. The Motion to Strike Amended Complaint filed by Lyeria on September 30, 2005 (Doc. 42), and
11. The Motions to Stay Filing of Responsive Pleading filed by Lyeria on September 30, 2005 (Doc. 43).
Each motion will be dealt with below, individually.

BACKGROUND

  The Plaintiff, Horace J. Griffin, filed a complaint on February 3, 2003 and an amended complaint on March 22, 2004. The Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and his complaint underwent a 28 U.S.C. § 1915A screening on April 8, 2005. The Plaintiff's amended complaint generally alleges that he was denied protective custody and was subsequently attacked by fellow inmates at the Menard and Lawrence Correctional Centers.

  The amended complaint is slightly longer than the original complaint and appears to include additional attachments. It appears, from District Judge David R. Herndon's April 8, 2005 order, that the Clerk was directed to forward copies of the complaint to the U.S. Marshal for service, as oppose to the amended complaint. The U.S. Marshal was then directed to serve the Defendants who remained after screening. Each of the Defendants returned waivers of service of process (Docs. 25, 26, 34, 36).

  DISCUSSION

  Motion to Amend (Doc. 27)

  Motion of Officials Misconduct (Doc. 28)

  Motion for Service of Process (Doc. 35)

  Motion to Compel (Doc. 37

  In the Motion to Amend (Doc. 27) the Plaintiff states that he is following the Court's suggestion, in a May 24, 2005 order, that he file a motion to amend in order to add various defendants (who previously had been dismissed in the April 8, 2005 order). The Motion, however, does not state in what way the Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint. As Judge Herndon already has advised the Plaintiff, he must include, in any future motion to amend his complaint, a copy of the amended complaint. The Plaintiff is again directed, if he wishes to amend his complaint, to include a copy of the amended complaint with the motion and also to underline the additions that he wishes to make as provided by Local Rule 15.1. Therefore, this motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

  In the "Motion for Officials Misconduct," the Plaintiff states that his legal mail is being opened at the Western Correctional Center (where he currently is housed) without him being present. He specifically alleges that he received an envelope from the U.S. Marshal date stamped May 27, 2005 that contained no letter. It is wholly unclear what the contents of the envelope may have been; however, the Plaintiff states that the envelope contained USM-285 forms. This motion is DENIED AS MOOT. All Defendants who remain after the initial screening have appeared. Therefore, it is unnecessary for the Plaintiff so submit any further USM-285 forms.

  In the remaining two motions, for service of process and to compel, the Plaintiff seeks a Court order compelling service of process on the four remaining defendants in this case. As indicated above, each of the Defendants have signed ...


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.