United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
OWEN M. GBORPLAY, No. 7450517 Plaintiff,
SGT. BARNHILL, CTP. MEADORS, WARDEN ACUFF, PULASKI COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, and UNKNOWN PARTY Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT United States District Judge.
Owen M. Gborplay, a citizen of Liberia, is presently being
detained in the Pulaski County Detention Center. According to
Plaintiff's Original Complaint (Doc. 1), at the time of
the incident in question, he was a federal Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detainee awaiting
deportation. Plaintiff brings this action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is presently before the Court
on Plaintiffs Motions for Leave to File an Amended Complaint
(Doc. 5, filed on April 3, 2017 and Doc. 7, filed April 10,
Original Complaint was filed on February 13, 2017. (Doc. 1).
The original Complaint identified the following Defendants:
(1) Sgt. Barnhill; (2) Cpt. Meadors; (3) Warden Acuff; (4)
Pulaski County detention Center; and (5) Unknown Party
(Medical Department). In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges
that on January 5, 2017 (while he was an immigration detainee
being held awaiting deportation), after an incident in the
“B” pod housing unit he was transferred to
segregation. (Doc. 1, p. 1). Upon transfer, Plaintiff was
stripped naked in front of other officers and the incident
was recorded. Id. Additionally, he was placed in
shackles around the ankles, wrist, and belly. (Doc. 1, p. 2).
The shackles were extremely tight. Id. Plaintiff
complained to Barnhill regarding the shackles but he refused
to remove or loosen them. Plaintiff was left like this for 24
hours. Id. Every thirty minutes, a nurse examined
him but refused to relay his concerns regarding the shackles
being too tight. Id. In the morning, Sergeant Atkins
and another officer entered Plaintiff's cell.
Id. They agreed that the shackles were too tight and
adjusted them. Id. Plaintiff alleges that due to the
tightness of the shackles during that 24 hour period, he
could not eat breakfast or lunch. Id. He also
alleges that, as a result of this incident, he suffers from
pain in his lung and occasionally has difficulty breathing at
night. Id. He is also having difficulty sleeping and
suffers from anxiety over the incident. Id. In
connection with these claims, Plaintiff requests monetary
April 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend Complaint.
(Doc. 5). The Motion and the proposed amended complaint were
contained in a single document. The caption of the proposed
amended complaint provides as follows with regard to the
parties: “Owen M. Gborplay, Plaintiff v. Sgt. Barnhill,
Pulaski Co. Detention et. al.” However, the body of the
proposed amended complaint only identifies a single defendant
- Pulaski County Detention Center. The proposed amended
complaint does not include any claims pertaining to the
January 5, 2017 incident described in the Original Complaint.
Instead, the proposed amended complaint brings allegations,
directed at the Pulaski County Detention Center, pertaining
to unreasonable strip searches occurring between January and
March of 2017. In connection with these claims, Plaintiff
requests monetary damages.
April 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a second Motion to Amend
Complaint. Once again, the motion and proposed amended
complaint were contained in a single document. The caption of
the second proposed amended complaint provides as follows
with regard to the parties: “Owen M. Gborplay,
Plaintiff v. Pulaski Co. Detention Medical Department et.
al.” The body of the proposed amended complaint only
identifies a single defendant - Pulaski County Detention
Center Medical Department. The allegations in the second
proposed amended complaint focus, once again, on the January
5, 2017 incident described in the Original Complaint.
However, all of the allegations are directed against the
Pulaski County Detention Center Medical. Additionally,
Plaintiff asserts facts that implicate ongoing and
potentially serious health concerns. Specifically, Plaintiff
alleges that, as a result of the January 5, 2017 incident, he
is “suffering from sharp pain coming from under [his]
heart and lack of breathing off and on throughout during the
day.” Plaintiff further alleges that he has requested
medical treatment but has not yet been examined by a
physician. In connection with these claims, Plaintiff seeks
only monetary damages.
to File is Granted
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), “[a] party
may amend its pleading once as a matter of course.”
Plaintiff's April 3, 2017, Motion to Amend Complaint
(Doc. 5) is GRANTED in accord with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a)(1). Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk
of the Court to docket the proposed amended complaint as
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.
amending once as a matter of course, in order to file an
additional amended complaint, a party must obtain either: (1)
consent from the opposing party; or (2) leave of court.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). This Court is to “freely give
leave when justice so requires.” Id; see
Doe v. Howe Military School, 227 F.3d 981, 989 (7th Cir.
2000). Plaintiff's April 10, 2017 Motion to Amend
Complaint (Doc. 7) is GRANTED in accord with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the
clerk of the Court to docket the proposed amended complaint
as Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.
of Amended Pleadings
Court suspects that, when Plaintiff submitted his amended
pleadings, Plaintiff intended to supplement rather than
replace the claims in his original complaint. However, this
type of supplementation is not permitted. An amended
complaint supersedes the original complaint, rendering the
original complaint void. See Flannery v. Recording Indus.
Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n.1 (7th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, only the allegations in the Second Amended
Complaint are presently before the Court. The allegations
asserted in the Original Complaint (Doc. 1) and in the First
Amended Complaint (Doc. 5) are void.
Screening of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint
the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint pertaining to
Plaintiff's ongoing medical issues, the Court is
proceeding with an immediate screening of the Second Amended
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
(a) Screening - The court shall review, before docketing, if
feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after
docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner
seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal - On review, the court shall
identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any
portion of ...