IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
June 17, 2009
WILLIAM DALE CARTER, PLAINTIFF,
ROGER WALKER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for clarification and addition of defendants (Doc. 32).
In his motion for clarification, Plaintiff claims (once again) that there is some confusion over this Court's Memorandum and Order dated March 30, 2009 (Doc. 12). In that Memorandum and Order, the Court separated Plaintiff's claims into ten distinct counts (Doc. 12). The ten Counts are listed on page 3 of the Memorandum and Order and each count is clearly identified as "COUNT" followed by a number.*fn1 The Court concluded that Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 10 did not survive review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and, therefore, Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 10 were dismissed by the Court. Plaintiff has appealed the dismissal of Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 10 to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and remains pending before the appellate court.
In its Memorandum and Order (Doc. 12), this Court further found that Counts 5, 7 and 8 -as identified on page 3 of its prior Memorandum and Order (Doc. 12) - survived review under § 1915A. Although Counts 7 and 8 were not dismissed under § 1915A, however, the Court informed Plaintiff that it intended to sever Counts 7 and 8 into two separate civil actions. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Counts 7 and 8, however, were not severed into new actions because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed them on April 17, 2009 (Docs 16 and 17).
With regard to Count 5, Plaintiff's motion seeks to identify the "John Doe" Defendants who allegedly failed to protect him from being attacked by another inmate by naming them in the instant motion. While Plaintiff's appeal remain pending before the Seventh Circuit, however, this Court lacks jurisdiction to proceed on Count 5. Furthermore, as stated in the Court's prior Memorandum and Order (Doc. 12), Plaintiff must identify the "John Doe" Defendants by (1) filing a proper amended complaint and (2) by completing USM-285 forms for each of these Defendants.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for clarification and addition of defendants (Doc. 32) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL J. REAGAN United States District Judge