Eric C. Pendleton v. Randy Kennedy, et al.

No. 3:24-cv-00252 (M.D. Tenn.) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division · March 6, 2026 · No. 3:24-cv-00252

Summary

The court grants the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, vacates its prior dismissal for failure to prosecute, and reinstates the case to the active docket. It denies without prejudice the motion for appointment of counsel and motions concerning service and insurance records. The court gives the plaintiff one additional opportunity to file a complete amended complaint before conducting the required screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

Holdings

  1. The court granted reconsideration and vacated the prior dismissal because the April 11, 2025 order granted Plaintiff permission to amend but did not require him to file an amended complaint; after the amendment period expired, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
  2. Plaintiff was not entitled to appointed counsel at that stage because he did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances, so the motion was denied without prejudice.
  3. The motions for service by United States Marshal and to compel production of insurance records were denied without prejudice because they were premature before the court completed screening of the in forma pauperis complaint.
  4. Plaintiff may not litigate or add claims through supplements, notices, or letters; any amended complaint must be properly filed, contain all claims and defendants, and not incorporate prior filings by reference.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the court should reconsider or vacate its dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because the dismissal rested on a mistaken understanding of a prior order.
  2. Whether Plaintiff demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel in this civil action.
  3. Whether Plaintiff's motions for service by United States Marshal and production of insurance records were ripe before the required screening of his in forma pauperis complaint.
  4. Whether Plaintiff could supplement or add claims through separate notices, letters, and supplemental filings rather than a properly filed amended complaint.

Disposition

vacated

Cases Cited (8)

  • GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999)(followed)
  • Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981)(followed)
  • Willett v. Wells, 469 F. Supp. 748, 751 (E.D. Tenn. 1977), aff'd, 595 F.2d 1227 (6th Cir. 1979)(followed)
  • Williamson v. Autorama, Inc., No. 91-5759, 947 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1991)(followed)
  • Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 604-05 (6th Cir. 1993)(followed)
  • Wilson v. United States, No. 3:18-CV-00735, 2021 WL 1088178, at *8 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 22, 2021)(followed)
  • Gould v. California Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., No. 19-CV-00015-HSG, 2019 WL 2059660, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2019)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…