Summary
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee addresses amended in forma pauperis applications, the operative complaint, and a motion for a temporary restraining order in a pro se civil-rights action. The court grants Quentin P. Oglesby’s amended IFP application, denies Donald L. Fields’s and Cartaze H. Ragland’s applications without prejudice, and denies the TRO motion without prejudice for failure to satisfy procedural requirements. The court also permits the plaintiffs to submit a proposed Fourth Amended Complaint within 30 days.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiffs should be permitted to file a proposed Fourth Amended Complaint and required to consolidate their claims, parties, and facts in one signed pleading.
- Whether Ragland, Oglesby, and Fields demonstrated eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis.
- Whether the plaintiffs' ex parte request for immediate relief satisfied the procedural requirements for a temporary restraining order.
Holdings
- The court granted plaintiffs an opportunity to file a proposed Fourth Amended Complaint within 30 days, required that all relevant claims, plaintiffs, defendants, and facts be included in that pleading, prohibited incorporation by reference of prior allegations, and required handwritten signatures from all individuals seeking plaintiff status.
- Ragland's amended IFP application was denied without prejudice because it did not provide complete information regarding his living expenses and other expenses, and he was required to pay his proportionate share of the civil filing fee.
- Oglesby's amended IFP application was granted.
- Fields's amended IFP application was denied without prejudice because he left multiple sections incomplete and provided no spousal information, and he was required to pay his proportionate share of the civil filing fee.
- The TRO motion was denied without prejudice because it was not accompanied by a memorandum of law, an affidavit or verified complaint, or a written certification regarding notice.
Key quotations
“The Court will not piece together multiple complaints.” (Section I)
“The TRO Motion does not comply with these rules.” (Section III)
Factual background
Fields, Oglesby, Ragland, and, in an earlier amended pleading, Frierson, filed multiple pro se civil-rights complaints naming different defendants. The operative pleading was the Third Amended Complaint, which named Fields, Oglesby, and Ragland but not Frierson. The plaintiffs submitted amended IFP applications with incomplete or inconsistent financial information, and Frierson, Ragland, and Fields later sought immediate injunctive relief concerning alleged harassment, interference with property, and access to property at 1209 Tulip Grove Road.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed an original complaint and several amended complaints. The court denied the initial IFP applications without prejudice for insufficient financial information, after which Ragland, Oglesby, and Fields filed amended applications. The court granted Oglesby's application, denied Ragland's and Fields's applications without prejudice, granted leave to file a proposed Fourth Amended Complaint within 30 days, and denied the TRO motion without prejudice for failure to satisfy applicable procedural requirements.