United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
PRIEST MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF, JR., Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION (DENYING SECOND MOTION TO
E. HUDSON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and in for
ma pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
The matter if before the Court on Plaintiffs "OMNIBUS
MOTION TO: RECONSIDER; TRANSFER JUDGESHIP; & NOTICE OF
APPEAL - in the alternative" ("Second Motion to
Reconsider," ECF No. 41, 42)
allegations failed to provide each defendant with fair notice
of the facts and legal basis upon which his or her liability
rests. Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on May 9,
2018, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit a Second
Particularized Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the
date of entry thereof. The Court warned Plaintiff that the
failure to submit the Second Particularized Complaint would
result in the dismissal of the action. More than fourteen
(14) days elapsed after the entry of the May 9, 2018
Memorandum Order and Plaintiff failed to submit a Second
Particularized Complaint or otherwise respond to the May 9,
2018 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, by Memorandum Opinion and
Order entered on June 14, 2018, the Court dismissed the
28, 2018, the Court received a Motion for Reconsideration
from Plaintiff wherein he insisted that he timely responded
to the May 9, 2018 Memorandum Order. Specifically, Plaintiff
asserted that in the response to the May 9, 2018 Memorandum
Order he filed a motion for an extension of time and a
request for the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, by
Memorandum Order entered on July 24, 2018, the Court informed
Plaintiff that if he wished the Court to reconsider the
dismissal of the action, he must submit a proper Second
Particularized Complaint within twenty (20) days of the date
of entry thereof.
August 13, 2018, Plaintiff submitted his Second
Particularized Complaint. Plaintiff, however, largely ignored
the Court's directions in the May 9, 2018 Memorandum
Order. Specifically, the May 9, 2018 Memorandum Order
informed Plaintiff that his "current conclusory
allegations ... fail to provide each defendant with fair
notice of the facts and legal basis upon which his or her
liability rests. See BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957))." (ECF No. 27, at 2.) The Court
further directed Plaintiff that:
b. The first paragraph of the particularized pleading must
contain a list of defendants. Thereafter, in the body of the
particularized complaint, Plaintiff must set forth legibly,
in separately numbered paragraphs, a short statement of the
facts giving rise to his claims for relief. Thereafter, in
separately captioned sections, Plaintiff must clearly
identify each civil right violated. Under each section, the
Plaintiff must list each defendant purportedly liable under
that legal theory and explain why he believes each defendant
is liable to him. Such explanation should reference the
specific numbered factual paragraphs in the body of the
particularized complaint that support that assertion.
Plaintiff shall also include a prayer for relief.
(Id.) The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to
comply with the above directives would result in the
dismissal of the action. (Id.)
Plaintiff did not list the defendants in the first paragraph
of the Second Particularized Complaint. Instead, the
defendants were scattered slip shod through-out the 99- page
Second Particularized Complaint. Plaintiff also ignored the
Court's admonition that the Second Particularized
Complaint must contain facts, rather than his conclusory
allegations. Although the Second Particularized Complaint was
almost 100 pages long, it contained virtually no facts.
Rather, the Second Particularized Complaint consisted almost
entirely of legal conclusions and allegations.
Court also warned Plaintiff that the Second Particularized
Complaint must comply with the rules regarding joinder.
Plaintiff made no effort to comply with those rules. Instead,
Plaintiff submitted the sort of "mishmash of a
complaint" that the rules governing joinder of parties
aim to prevent. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607
(7th Cir. 2007). Given the foregoing deficiencies, by
Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on September 24, 2018,
the Court denied Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider. The Court
further noted that because the action was dismissed without
prejudice, Plaintiff may pursue any of the claims he wished
to raise in this action by filing a proper new complaint that
would be opened as a new action.
Second Motion to Reconsider
Second Motion to Reconsider, Plaintiff ask the Court: to
reconsider the dismissal of the action: to transfer the
action to the Honorable Roderick C. Young, United States
Magistrate Judge; to reconsider the denial of Plaintiff s
motions; and to order the Clerk to open this action as a new
action. As Plaintiff offers no persuasive argument for the
action he seeks, his Second Motion to Reconsider (ECF Nos.
41, 42) will be denied. The Clerk will be directed to provide
Plaintiff with a docket sheet for the present action.
appropriate order will accompany ...