Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Abdo v. Larson

United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division

March 28, 2018

JOHN DAVID ABDO JR., Plaintiff,
v.
SHANE LARSON, OFFICER AT CITY OF WAGNER; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; AND BRIAN MCGUIRE, OFFICER AT CITY OF WAGNER; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; Defendants.

          ORDER

          LAWRENCE L. PIERSOL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff, 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.

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         The pertinent facts are set forth in the initial screening order at docket 7.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Motion to Amend

         Abdo moves to amend his complaint. Dockets 9, 20, 22. Under the local rules:

[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.

         Abdo 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.

         If Abdo 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.

         II. Motion to Re-Word Federal Question

         Abdo 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.