Coleman v. Greene County, Arkansas

3:06-cv-00102 | E.D. Ark. | Jul 7, 2006

Case 3:06-cv-00102-GH Document 9 Filed 07/07/06 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION JAMES EDWARD COLEMAN PLAINTIFF v. No. 3:06CV00102 GH GREENE COUNTY, ARKANSAS DEFENDANT

ORDER By order filed on June 26 th , the Court directed plaintiff to file a supplemental motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) that addressed the Court’s concerns about the source(s) of his financial support as his June 15 th IFP motion did not reflect that plaintiff had received any money from any source within the past twelve months. The Court also directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint that provided more details such as the names of the police that were involved in the alleged incident when he and his brother were incarcerated, the date of the alleged incident, how those individuals were “helping” the white males, and the injuries plaintiff allegedly suffered.

On June 29 th , plaintiff filed a supplemental IFP motion and an amended complaint. While the motion reflects that plaintiff has received disability or worker’s compensation payments within the past 12 months, he did not answer the second part of the question directing him to describe each source of money, state the amount received and what he expects he will continue to receive. However, in the amended complaint, plaintiff indicates that he receives SSI disability although the exact amount is not listed. Under “Statement of claim,” plaintiff states “the police and the white man beats him up the [sic] call him a nigger.” As for “Relief,” plaintiff has written “because.” The

-1- Case 3:06-cv-00102-GH Document 9 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 2 Court notes that the amended complaint states that it was executed in November or December of 2005 whereas the original complaint is dated June 14, 2006.

The entire substance of the original complaint alleges “me and my brother were incarcerated when we got into an comfrontation [sic] with 2 white males and the police were helping the white males” and “I’m sueing [sic] them for 30,000 due to hospital fees, pain and suffering and racial prejudice.” Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint that did not comply with the Court’s directions that he provide more details such as the names of the police officers that were involved in the alleged incident, the date of the alleged incident, how those individuals were “helping” the white males, and the injuries plaintiff allegedly suffered. Although the amended complaint does allege a beating and the use of a racial epithet, it is still unclear – especially with the reference to plaintiff’s brother in the original complaint – what are the facts of the alleged incident.

Under these circumstances, the Court will give plaintiff one last opportunity to correct the deficiencies in his filings. Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint, within 30 days of the file-date of this order, stating the date of the alleged incident, the names – if known – of the two police officers and three white men involved in the alleged incident, what each of those individuals is alleged to have done to plaintiff, and the injuries that plaintiff allegedly suffered. Plaintiff is again placed on notice that the failure to comply with this directive will result in dismissal of the case without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7 th day of July, 2006. ________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-