United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division
LAWRENCE L. PIERSOL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
John David Abdo, Jr., is an inmate at the South Dakota State
Penitentiary in Sioux Falls. He filed a pro se lawsuit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docket 1. This Court
screened his complaint and directed service on the surviving
claims. Docket 7. The defendants were served (Dockets 14 and
15) and filed their answer (Docket 16). Abdo now moves to
amend his complaint (Dockets 9, 20, 22), to re-word Federal
question and grant a preliminary injunction (Docket 12), to
petition prosecution investigation (Docket 20), and to
appoint counsel (Docket 22). For the reasons below, the court
denies Abdo's motions.
pertinent facts are set forth in the initial screening order
at docket 7.
Motion to Amend
moves to amend his complaint. Dockets 9, 20, 22. Under the
[A]ny party moving to amend a pleading will attach a copy of
the proposed amended pleading to its motion to amend with the
proposed changes highlighted or underlined so that they may
be easily identified. If the court grants the motion, the
moving party will file a clean original of the amended
pleading with the clerk of court within 7 days.
D.S.D. Civ. LR 15.1.
failed to follow this rule in attempting to amend his
complaint. Dockets 20, 22. On July 7, 2017, Abdo filed his
first amended complaint. Docket 9. Then, on December 4, 2017,
Abdo filed his second amended complaint. Docket 20. Finally,
on December 13, 2017, Abdo again moves to amend complaint.
Docket 22. It is unclear whether Abdo wishes the court to
construe his first amended complaint (Docket 9) as his
amended complaint or whether he wishes to add to or change
this complaint with his subsequent motions. Abdo's
motions to amend (Dockets 9, 20, 22) are denied.
wishes to amend his original complaint, he must either give
the court notice that he wishes his first amended complaint
(Docket 9) alone to constitute his complaint or file a
proposed amended complaint that fully states all of the
claims he intends to raise, not one that is an addition to
another complaint. If Abdo chooses to file a proposed amended
complaint that fully states all of the claims he intends to
raise, he must comply with local rule 15.1. Abdo is also
warned that the court will not reverse its previous screening
decision merely because he disagrees with it.
Motion to Re-Word Federal Question
moves the court to re-word a federal question he previously
posed to the court. Docket 12. Abdo now seeks to word the
question "based off the actual happening form, instead
of the vague, could have happened." Id. Abdo
asks the court, "Is it constitutional, without subject
matter, or without probable cause, to threaten safty [sic]
with force and threat of violence by way of entrapment,
agress [sic] and relieve an American citizen of
constitutional rights to unlawfully gain property, in which