VANDRISH v. NORTON et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:26-cv-00247-RAL Document14_ Filed 10/09/26 Page1of3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

AT ERIE
)
»)
Sharon Ann Vandrish, ) Case No. 1:26-cv-247
Plaintiff )
vs. RICHARD A. LANZILLO
) Chief United States Magistrate Judge
)
Melissa Morton, et al., ) INRE: ECF NO. 4
Defendant )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Plaintiff Sharon Ann Vandrish, a pro se inmate proceeding in forma pauperis
(ECF No. 3), has filed four documents containing allegations and claims: a
Complaint (ECF No. 4); a Supplement (ECF No. 6); a Brief in support (ECF No. 12);
and an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13).

None of these filings incorporates or replaces the others, so her claims are
now spread across four separate documents. The Court cannot screen the action
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A on this record.

A plaintiff must set out her claims in a single pleading containing “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” with
allegations stated in numbered paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), 10(b). An
amended pleading supersedes all earlier pleadings. Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938
F.3d 69, 82 (8d Cir. 2019). The Court will not assemble a plaintiffs claims from

multiple submissions, see Argentina v. Gillette, 778 F. App’x 173, 175 n.3 (3d Cir.

Case 1:26-cv-00247-RAL Document14_ Filed 10/09/26 Page2of3

2019), and a complaint may not be amended through a brief. Pennsylvania ex rel.
Zimmerman v. PepsiCo, Inc., 836 F.2d 173, 181 (3d Cir. 1988). See also Randolph v.
Moore, 2025 WL 1404676, at *5 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 8, 2025), report and recommendation
adopted relevant in part, rejected in other part, 2025 WL 1489632 (W.D. Pa. May
23, 025). Although Plaintiffs pleadings are liberally construed, her pro se status
does not excuse compliance with these rules. Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704
F.3d 239, 244-45 (3d Cir. 2013).

AND NOW, this7 _ day of October, 2026, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Plaintiff shall file a single, comprehensive Second Amended Complaint on or before

Nov , 2026. The Second Amended Complaint must: |

1. Stand alone. It must contain every claim and supporting fact Plaintiff
wishes to pursue, without reference to any earlier filing. It will replace ECF Nos. 4,
6, 12, and 13 in their entirety. Anything omitted will be deemed abandoned.

2. Use the proper title and caption. It must be titled “Second Amended
Complaint,” bear this case number, and name every defendant in the caption. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 10(a).

3. Allege specific facts against each defendant. In numbered paragraphs,
Plaintiff must state what each defendant personally did, when and where it
occurred, and how it violated her rights. Liability under § 1988 is personal.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009); Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195,
1207 (3d Cir. 1988). Allegations against “the Defendants” collectively are

insufficient.

Case 1:26-cv-00247-RAL Document14_ Filed 10/09/26 Page3of3

4. Identify the legal basis and relief. For each claim, Plaintiff must identify
the constitutional provision or federal statute allegedly violated and the defendant
against whom the claim is asserted. She must also state the relief she seeks. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(8).

5. Join only related claims. Unrelated claims against different defendants
must be brought in separate actions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).

6. Omit legal argument. Plaintiff should not file a separate brief, supplement,
or other document adding to her claims.

Screening of any Second Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is
deferred pending the filing of the Second Amended Complaint. If Plaintiff fails to
file it by the deadline, the Court may recommend the dismissal of this action for
failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);
Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (8d Cir. 1984).

BY THE COURT:

— Tee A

RICHARD A. LANZILLO *
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE