United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division
June 13, 2014
JONATHON MICHAEL HANKINS, Plaintiff,
MICHAEL PAUSZEK Doctor, Defendant.
ENTRY DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge., United States District Court Distribution: Southern District of Indiana.
I. Filing Fee
The plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 3] is granted.
II. Clerk’s Assistance
In this case, plaintiff Jonathon Michael Hankins alleges that defendant Dr. Michael Pauszek allegedly failed to provide constitutionally adequate medical care after admitting Hankins to the Johnson County Memorial Hospital on June 1, 2010.
This claim was severed from case number 1:12-cv-683-TWP-DML. The clerk is directed to refile Filing No. 83 from 1:12-cv-683-TWP-DML in this action.
The clerk is directed to update the docket to reflect that Kelly J. Pitcher has appeared as counsel on behalf of Dr. Pauszek.
III. Amended Complaint Required
The plaintiff shall have through July 22, 2014, in which to file an amended complaint in this action. The amended complaint must be limited to claims against Dr. Pauszek. No exhibits should be attached. The amended complaint will completely replace and supersede the prior complaints. Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727, 735 (7th Cir. 1999).
In submitting an amended complaint, the plaintiff shall conform to the following guidelines:
! The amended complaint shall comply with the requirement of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that pleadings contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . .”;
! The amended complaint shall comply with the requirement of Rule 10 that the allegations in a complaint be made in numbered paragraphs, each of which should recite, as far as practicable, only a single set of circumstances; and
! The amended complaint must identify what legal injury he claims to have suffered and what persons are responsible for each such legal injury.
The amended complaint will then be screened as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The defendant is not expected to file an answer or to otherwise respond to the amended complaint until after screening has occurred. Counsel will not be recruited to represent Hankins if no viable claim is alleged.
IT IS SO ORDERED.