Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00011-SLR Document 43 Filed 06/05/2006 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LEONARD K. BAYLIS, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. No. 06-11-SLR
STANLEY TAYLOR, et al., )
Defendant(s). )
O R D E R
At Wilmington this c}A day of June, 2006.
On May 8, 2006, plaintiff Leonard K. Baylis, a prisoner
incarcerated at the Delaware Correctional Center, Smyrna,
Delaware, filed a document entitled “supplemental complaint with
included motion for restraining order and an addition of
defendants." (D.I. 34) Plaintiff makes two requests in the
filing. He seeks to amend his complaint to add as defendants
Warden Thomas Carroll and Counselor Italia. He also moves for
injunctive relief advising the court that his life has been
threatened by his cellmate, that the staff is doing nothing to
protect him, and seeks a transfer to mental health so that he
“may be allowed to function without threat." Defendant Stanley
Taylor opposes the motion and plaintiff filed a response to the
opposition. (D.I. 36, 4l)
Plaintiff’s response states that he wishes to add Warden
Thomas Carroll and Counselor Italia as defendants for their “non—
action to serious and legitimate complaints that left unguarded

Case 1:06-cv-00011-SLR Document 43 Filed 06/05/2006 Page 2 of 2
will and has cost plaintiff measurable repercussions to his well
being and safety." (D.I. 41) He reiterates his request for
injunctive relief and also asks for appointed counsel to “better
ensure clarity and placement of issues . . . and to better ensure
that the truth will more likely be exposed where both sides are
equally represented." Id;
IT IS ORDERED THAT;
1. The motion to amend the complaint to add Warden Thomas
Carroll and Counselor Italia is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff’s is given leave to file a motion to amend, but any
newly filed motion to amend must contain a copy of the proposed
amended complaint containing sufficient facts to apprise the
court of the exact nature of the claim against the proposed
defendants.
2. Defendants shall file a response to plaintiff’s motion
for injunctive relief (D.I. 34) on or before June 15, 2006.
Plaintiff may file a reply on or before June 22, 2006.
4. The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. At this juncture in the case, plaintiff has shown
that he is able to clearly articulate the alleged facts and
issues. §gg Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 499 (3d Cir.
2002); Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 1993).