United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
A. GIBNEY, JR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Welty, Jr., a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action. On January 5, 2015, Welty was severely beaten by
another inmate in the Prince William Manassas Regional Adult
Detention Center. Welty contends that, inter alia,
his rights under the Eighth Amendment were violated because
of Defendants' indifference to inadequate security
measures at the Jail that led to the assault. For the reasons
set forth below, Welty will be DIRECTED to file a Third
Particularized Complaint and Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss will be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Memorandum Order entered on January 27, 2017, the Court
directed Welty to file a particularized complaint that
provided each defendant with fair notice of the facts and
legal basis upon which his or her liability rests. (ECF No.
48.) Thereafter, Welty filed his First Particularized
Complaint (ECF No. 50.) By Memorandum Order entered on
September 14, 2017, the Court informed Welty that his First
Particularized Complaint failed to state a claim for relief.
(ECF No. 66, at 5.) The Court gave Welty another
opportunity to file a proper complaint. (Id. at 6.)
On October 11, 2017, Welty filed his Second Particularized
Complaint. (ECF No. 67.) On November 30, 2017, the Court
directed the Marshal to serve Defendants with the Second
Particularized Complaint. (ECF No. 70.)
January 3, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss the Second
Particularized Complaint ("First Motion to Dismiss,
" ECF No. 73.) On March 5, 2018, Welty filed an Amended
Complaint. (ECF No. 80.) On March 15, 2018, Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint ("Second
Motion to Dismiss, " ECF No. 81). On April 12, 2018,
Welty filed his Opposition to the Second Motion to Dismiss.
(ECF No. 85.)
also has filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
(ECF No. 77) and a Motion for an Injunction. (ECF No. 83.)
Amendments and the Motions to Dismiss With respect
to amendments, the pertinent rule provides:
(a) Amendments Before Trial.
Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may
amend its pleading once as a matter of course within:
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is
required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or
21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or
(f), whichever is earlier.
(2) Other Amendments. In all other
cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing
party's written consent or the court's leave. The
court should freely give leave when justice so requires.
(3) Time to Respond. Unless the
court orders otherwise, any required response to an amended
pleading must be made within the time remaining to respond to
the original pleading or within 14 days after service of ...