TAYLOR v. PHILLIPS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
GRADY TAYLOR, JR., 	:
:
Plaintiff 	:
: 	NO. 5:25-CV-00447-CAR-CHW
VS. 	:
:
Officer PHILLIPS, 	:
: 	PROCEEDINGS U NDER 42 U.S.C. §1983
Defendants 	: 	BEFORE THE U. S. M AGISTRATE JUDGE
__________________________________
ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Grady Taylor, Jr., a prisoner currently housed at Jefferson
County Correctional Institute in Louisville, Georgia, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, related to an incident that occurred while he was confined in the Washington
County Jail. 	ECF No. 1. Plaintiff has paid the partial initial filing fee as previously
ordered. Plaintiff must now recast his complaint to avoid dismissal of this civil action.
INITIAL REVIEW OF COMPLAINT
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), a federal court is required to conduct an initial
screening of a prisoner complaint “which seeks redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 	Here, Plaintiff used the Court’s standard
form in drafting his complaint. ECF No. 1. The complaint appears to set forth an 8th or
14th 	Amendment 	claim 	of 	excessive 	force 	against 	Officer 	Phillips, 	but 	much 	of
Plaintiff’s description of the incident is illegible and difficult to read. 	See id. at 5-7. 	A
complaint that cannot be clearly read is subject to dismissal. 	See, e.g., Jackson v. Santa
Case 5:25-cv-00447-CAR-CHW Document 5 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 5

2
Rosa Corr. Inst., No. 3:23CV11741-LC-HTC, 2023 WL 6305812, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Sept.
13, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:23CV11741-LC-HTC, 2023 WL
6299097 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2023); Scibelli v. Lebanon County, 219 F. App’x 221, 222
(3d Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of a complaint which was “exceptionally difficult to
understand 	and 	in 	many 	instances 	either 	illegible 	or 	incomprehensible”) 	(internal
quotations and alteration omitted).
It is not incumbent upon the Court to effectively re-write Plaintiff’s complaint so
that it states a claim for which relief may be granted and complies with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. 	See GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cty. of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th
Cir. 1998) (holding that while “[c]ourts do and should show a leniency to pro se litigants
not enjoyed by those with the benefit of a legal education,” a court may not “serve as de
facto counsel for a party” or “rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain
an action”). 	Rather than recommending dismissal of this complaint out right, the Court
will afford the pro se Plaintiff one opportunity to remedy the defects as explained herein.
See Duff v. Steub, 378 F. App’x 868, 872 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
Thus, Plaintiff is now required to submit a recast complaint if he wishes to
proceed. 	The recast complaint must contain a caption that clearly identifies, by name,
each individual that Plaintiff has a claim against and wishes to include as a Defendant in
the present lawsuit. Plaintiff is to name only the individuals associated with the claim that
he is pursuing in this action. 	It is recommended that, when drafting his statement of
claims, Plaintiff list numbered responses to the following questions (to the extent
Case 5:25-cv-00447-CAR-CHW Document 5 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 5

3
possible) along with the name of each defendant:
(1) 	What did this Defendant do (or not do) to violate your rights? 	In other
words: What was the extent of this Defendant’s role in the unconstitutional
conduct?
(2) 	Is the Defendant a supervisory official and if so, was he/she personally
involved in the constitutional violation? 	If not, how did his/her actions
otherwise cause the unconstitutional action? How do you know?1
(3) 	When and where did each action occur (to the extent memory allows)?2
(4) 	How were you injured because of this Defendant’s actions or inactions?
(5) 	What relief do you seek from this Defendant?
Plaintiff must thoroughly and completely answer each question presented in the
Court’s standard § 1983 complaint form, including but not limited to the actions he has
taken to fully exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing a federal civil action
asserting a civil rights violation. Plaintiff should take care to write his complaint legibly
and coherently, so that the Court can read it and understand it.
Plaintiff is hereby notified that one sole operating complaint is permissible. The
1 	Plaintiff 	is 	advised 	that 	he 	cannot 	simply 	name 	supervisors 	such 	as 	Prison
Commissioners, 	Wardens, 	and 	Deputy 	Wardens 	based 	solely 	on 	their 	supervisory
positions. Supervisors are liable under § 1983 only if they personally participate in the
constitutional 	violation, 	direct 	their 	subordinates 	to 	act 	unlawfully, 	or 	know 	their
subordinates will act unlawfully but fail to stop them. Keating v. City of Miami, 598 F.3d
753, 762 (11th Cir.2010). “The standard by which a supervisor is held liable in her
individual capacity for the actions of a subordinate is extremely rigorous.” 	Hendrix v.
Tucker, 535 F. App’x 803, 805 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
2 From what the Court can discern, the complaint fails to state the date on which the
incident occurred. Plaintiff must provide the Court with this information.
Case 5:25-cv-00447-CAR-CHW Document 5 Filed 11/21/25 Page 3 of 5

4
general rule is that an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint. See Lowery
v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1219 (11th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); Fritz v.
Standard Sec. Life Ins.Co., 676 F.2d 1356, 1358 (11th Cir. 1982). 	Thus, Plaintiff’s
amended complaint will take the place of his original complaint. 	In other words, the
Court will not refer to the original complaint to see if Plaintiff has stated a viable claim.
Plaintiff should state his claims as simply as possible in his recast complaint referring
only to the relevant allegations against the named defendants in this case. If Plaintiff fails
to link a named Defendant to a claim, the claim will be dismissed; if Plaintiff makes no
allegations in the body of his complaint against a named Defendant, that Defendant will
be dismissed. If Plaintiff raises unrelated claims under the same civil action number, the
unrelated claims may be dismissed.
The Court will presume that Plaintiff’s claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
unless otherwise specified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff should not otherwise use legal
terminology or cite any specific statute or case law to state a claim unless absolutely
necessary to clarify a claim. 	Plaintiff is not to include any exhibits or attachments. 	The
recast complaint must be no longer than ten (10) pages in its entirety.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff shall have FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of this Order to recast
his complaint on the Court’s standard § 1983 form as instructed. 	The CLERK is
DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a standard § 1983 complaint form along with a copy of this
Order (all showing the civil action number).
Case 5:25-cv-00447-CAR-CHW Document 5 Filed 11/21/25 Page 4 of 5

5
While this action is pending, Plaintiff must also immediately inform the Court in
writing of any change in his mailing address. 	Failure to fully and timely comply with
this Order may result in the dismissal of this Complaint. 	There will be no service of
process upon any Defendant until further order of the Court.
SO ORDERED and DIRECTED, this 21st day of November, 2025.
s/ Charles H. Weigle
Charles H. Weigle
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00447-CAR-CHW Document 5 Filed 11/21/25 Page 5 of 5