IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
September 22, 2006
DONNIE E. WHITE, INMATE #B31317, PLAINTIFF,
CHARLES L. HINSLEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On August 11, 2006, the Court denied Plaintiff's numerous motions to amend his complaint and dismissed his original complaint for failure to comply with the mandate in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) that it be "simple, concise, and direct." The Court granted Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint in compliance with the federal and local rules and directed the Clerk to forward Plaintiff a copy of his original complaint to assist him in preparing the amended complaint.
On August 23, 2006, Plaintiff filed an affidavit stating that he had received the Court's order, but that it did not contain a copy of the original complaint (Doc. 24). On the same day that the Court received this affidavit, the Clerk's office forwarded to Plaintiff a copy of the original complaint. On August 30, 2006, Plaintiff requested additional time to prepare his amended complaint because of the delay in receiving the copy of his original complaint. On September 8, 2006, the Court granted that motion for an extension of time, giving Plaintiff an additional 15 days to file a motion to amend his complaint (Doc. 25).
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel the clerk to comply with the Court's order (Doc. 26). Plaintiff states that he never received the copy of his original complaint and requests that the Court order the Clerk's office to forward another copy to him (Doc. 26). That motion is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward to Plaintiff a copy of his original complaint. The Clerk shall not include any exhibits filed in the case.
Plaintiff is given until October 13, 2006, to file an amended complaint. No additional extensions of time will be granted. If Plaintiff fails to file his amended complaint by this date, the action will be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the Court. FED.R.CIV.P. 41(b); see generally Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994). The Plaintiff is reminded again that the complaint does not have to make legal arguments, but merely needs to state the basic facts of his case in a concise and straightforward manner and name with specificity the individuals responsible for violating his constitutional rights.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL J. REAGAN United States District Judge
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.