Young v. Rios et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
GEORGE SOLER YOUNG, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-15-641-R
)
HECTOR RIOS et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Plaintiff George Soler Young initially filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
raising five federal constitutional claims against twenty-one Defendants. See Compl.
(Doc. No. 1) at 1-2, 12-13; R. & R. (Doc. No. 81) at 1-3. All Defendants moved for
dismissal, and on March 10, 2016, the undersigned recommended that Plaintiff’s claims
be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6), with the
exception of: (i) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim as to five
Defendants; and (ii) Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliatory transfer claim as to eleven
Defendants. See R. & R. at 34-35.
On October 4, 2016, United States District Judge David L. Russell fully adopted
the reasoning of the undersigned’s Report and Recommendation but granted Plaintiff
thirty days to file an amended complaint that would “address the deficiencies” noted in
the Report and Recommendation as well as in Judge Russell’s own Order. See Order
(Doc. No. 95) at 3, 5-6. Plaintiff was specifically cautioned: “[T]he Amended Complaint
Case 5:15-cv-00641-G Document 105 Filed 01/05/17 Page 1 of 3

2
will stand on its own; accordingly, it must contain all of the allegations, claims, and
parties he intends to be before this Court.” Id. at 3.
Following two extensions of time, Plaintiff submitted an Amended Complaint
(Doc. No. 102), along with 176 pages of attachments (Doc. Nos. 102-1 to 102-27).1 The
twenty-one original Defendants have now jointly filed a Motion for Extension of Time,
seeking additional time to file their answer(s) or responsive pleading(s) with respect to
the Amended Complaint. See Defs.’ Mot. Extension of Time (Doc. No. 104) at 1-2; see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3).
Because Plaintiff is incarcerated, proceeding in forma pauperis, and seeking
redress from government officials, his superseding Amended Complaint is subject to
review by the Court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(a)-(b); 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(c)(1)-(2); see, e.g., Wanamaker v. Chaffim, No. CIV-14-12-R, 2014 WL 1356512,
at *1 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 4, 2014) (dismissing amended complaint on screening). For good
cause shown, Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 104) is therefore
GRANTED. Defendants need not respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint at this time.
Upon review of the Amended Complaint, the Court will issue further direction to the
parties as to whether service is warranted. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2); LCvR 9.2(c).
1 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint identifies at least nineteen additional Defendants and
purports to rely upon federal statute and state law as well as the Constitution—features
that appear inconsistent with the express parameters of the leave to amend granted by
Judge Russell. See Am. Compl. at 1-17; Order at 3, 5-6.
Case 5:15-cv-00641-G Document 105 Filed 01/05/17 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of January, 2017.
Case 5:15-cv-00641-G Document 105 Filed 01/05/17 Page 3 of 3