Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:O7—cv—OO230-JJF Document 26 Filed 04/16/2008 Page1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RAYMOND E. BLAKE, :
Plaintiff, ;
v. Z Civ. Action No. 07-230-JJF
MANONCHEK C. YOUNG, MICHAEL i
LITTLE, ANGELO JOHNSON, :
RAPHAEL WILLIAMS, THOMAS :
CARROLL, C.M.S., JANICE HENRY,:
STACEY HOLLIS, NATASHA L. :
HOLLINGSWORTH, and RONALD :
HOLSTERMAN, :
Defendants. E
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff Raymond E. Blake (“Plaintiff"), an inmate at the
Sussex Correctional Institution (“SCI”), Georgetown, Delaware,
filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
appears pro se and was granted in fgrma pauperis status pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.I. 8.)
On August 1, 2007, his original Complaint was dismissed as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted and the case was closed. (D.I. 13.) An Amended
Complaint was filed, adding new Defendants and claims. (D.I.
15.) The Amended Complaint was screened, and many of the
Defendants and claims were dismissed. Of the claims dismissed,
most were dismissed with prejudice, but Plaintiff’s excessive
force claim and verbal claims against Defendant Natasha
Hollingsworth (“Hollingsworth") was dismissed without prejudice.

Case 1:07—cv—0O230-JJF Document 26 Filed 04/16/2008 Page 2 of 3
Plaintiff was allowed to proceed against Defendants C.M.S.,
Thomas Carroll, Natasha L. Hollingsworth, Janice Henry, and
Stacey Hollis on the Eighth Amendment medical needs claim;
against Defendants Manonchek C. Young, Michael Little, Angelo
Johnson, Raphael Williams, Thomas Carroll, Janice Henry, Stacey
Hollis, Ronald Holsterman, and Natasha L. Hollingsworth on the
retaliation claims; and against Defendants Manonchek C. Young,
Michael Little, Angelo Johnson, Raphael Williams, Thomas Carroll,
Janice Henry, Stacey Hollis, and Ronald Holsterman on the access
to the courts claims. On January 18, 2008, Plaintiff filed
another Amended Civil Rights Complaint (hereafter (“First Amended
Complaint"). (D.I. 24.)
The Court’s Memorandum Opinion dated October 19, 2007,
contains a detailed description of the claims raised in the
Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint is similar to the
Amended Complaint, in that it contains all the claims raised
against the remaining Defendants, including some dismissed with
prejudice. The claims that were dismissed without prejudice are
also included, but those claims are insufficient pled in the
First Amended Complaint. While the First Amended Complaint does
not include the allegations against the previously dismissed
Defendants, it nonetheless is basically duplicative of the
Amended Complaint.
THEREFORE, at Wilmington this _&Z_ day of April, 2008, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The First Amended Complaint (D.I. 24) is STRICKEN as

Case 1:07—cv—00230-JJF Document 26 Filed 04/16/2008 Page 3 of 3
duplicative.
2. Service will proceed as outlined in the Court's October
19, 2007 Order. All USM—285 forms have been received. As set
forth in the Court’s October 19, 2007 Order, the Plaintiff shall
provide the Court with copies of the Amended Complaint (D.I. 15)
for service upon the remaining Defendants and the Attorney
General. Plaintiff shall provide said copies within thirty days
from the date of this Order. Failure to timely provide copies of
the Amended Complaint may result in dismissal of the case
3. Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To Proceed In Egrma
Pauperis is DENIED as mggt. (D.I.23.) Plaintiff was granted
leave to proceed in fgrma pauperis on July 5, 2007. (See D.I.
8. )
Fp Z,
ED S AT DISTRICT GE