United States District Court, D. Maine
BRANDON B. DREWRY, Plaintiff
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, Defendant
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO AMEND
C. NIVISON U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend
and Proposed Amendments. (ECF No. 156.) Through his
motion, Plaintiff requests leave to proceed with his claim
against Defendants Robin Cross-Snell and Dr. Webster, without
filing a comprehensive amended complaint. In addition,
Plaintiff requests leave to supplement his pleadings to
assert or modify his plea for relief. Plaintiff's motion
is granted in part.
original complaint (ECF No. 1), filed October 3, 2014, did
not include Defendants Cross-Snell or Webster among the named
defendants. On September 28, 2015, the Court granted
Plaintiff's request to amend his pleadings to assert
claims against Defendants Cross-Snell and Webster. (ECF No.
95, ¶ 5 (“It is hereby ORDERED that
Plaintiff's Supplemental Pleading (ECF No. 68) is GRANTED
to permit his claim against Robin Cross-Snell.”) &
¶ 7 (“It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's
Supplemental Pleading (ECF No. 84) by which he reasserts his
request to join Dr. Webster as a Defendant (ECF No. 33) is
September 29, 2015, following entry of the Court's order
granting Plaintiff's request to amend his complaint (ECF
No. 95), the clerk made the following internal notation on
the docket: “Copies mailed to BRANDON B DREWRY re
Orders 94 and 95. Also sent [Notice of Electronic Filing] of
#95 with instructions to file amended complaint
Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, on October 28,
2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why he had
not filed an amended complaint. (Order to Show Cause, ECF No.
112.) In response, Plaintiff maintained the Court's order
(ECF No. 95) did not require the filing of an amended
complaint. (Response to Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 114.) On
November 16, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint “to establish one pleading that
includes all of Plaintiff's claims, and that will govern
the future course of the case.” The order was
consistent with the ordinary practice governing motions to
amend (i.e., that there be a proposed, comprehensive amended
complaint setting forth all of Plaintiff's claims).
(Order on Renewed Motion for Documents and Order to Show
Cause, ECF No. 115.) Subsequently, in various filings,
Plaintiff has argued that he has had and continues to have
difficulties accessing copies of his important case filings,
including his original complaint, and that it is difficult
for him to use the available records and resources to produce
a new amended complaint asserting all of the allegations set
forth in his prior pleadings. (See, e.g.,
Motion to Stay, ECF No. 155.)
his current motion, Plaintiff in essence requests leave to
proceed on his claim against Defendants Cross-Snell and
Webster without filing a new comprehensive pleading. In
addition, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the substance of his
Court recently addressed the issues relevant to a court's
assessment and management of amended pleadings filed by pro
Typically, an amended complaint replaces an original
complaint in its entirety, and claims that appear only in the
original are treated as abandoned. See Kolling v.
American Power Conversion Corp., 347 F.3d 11, 16 (1st
Cir. 2003). However, a pleading may adopt by reference
statements that appear in other pleadings. Fed.R.Civ.P.
10(c). A plaintiff who wishes to incorporate an original
complaint into an amended complaint in this manner is
required “to plead the claim with sufficient
specificity” to make a defendant aware that an
additional claim has been asserted. Kolling, 347 F
.3d at 17.
Against this backdrop, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
require that pleadings be construed “so as to do
justice.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e). While unrepresented
litigants “are not exempt from procedural rules, [the
court holds] pro se pleadings to less demanding standards
than those drafted by lawyers and endeavors, within
reasonable limits, to guard against the loss of pro se claims
due to technical defects.” Dutil v. Murphy,
550 F.3d 154, 158 (1st Cir. 2008); see also Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (pro se
complaints are to be “liberally construed”)
(internal quotations and citations omitted).
Doyle v. Falmouth Police Dep't, No.
2:14-CV-259-JDL, 2015 WL 470715, at *2, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
12994, at *5 - *6 (D. Me. Feb. 4, 2015, Levy, J.).
this understandable approach to amendments filed by pro se
litigants, insofar Plaintiff's prior pleadings (ECF Nos.
33, 44, 68, 84) provide Defendants Cross-Snell and Webster
with notice of the factual basis of Plaintiff's claims,
the Court will permit Plaintiff to incorporate his claims
against Defendants Cross-Snell and Webster into the operative
complaint. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to modify or
supplement any of the substantive claims he has asserted to
this point, given ...