United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
RAYVON L. BOATMAN, Plaintiff,
DOROTHY RIDDLE, ANGELA BARRETO, GEORGE F. NARYSHKIN, THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICE, DIRECTORS, THE GEO GROUP, DONALD SAWYER, REBECCA JACKSON and KATJA HAASE, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the Court is Plaintiff
Rayvon Boatman's Limited Motion for Clarification of the
Record Only (Doc. 11), to which there is no opposition.
Boatman, a civil detainee, sues for deliberate indifference
to his dental health. The Court construes Boatman's
motion to mean he wants to consolidate this case with his
other federal case and to replead his case as against
Defendants Dorothy Riddle, Angela Barreto, and George F.
Naryshkin. The Court starts with consolidation.
moves to consolidate this case with his other lawsuit before
the undersigned: Boatman v Sawyer, No.
2:18-cv-418-FtM-38MRM. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42
says, “[i]f actions before the court involve a common
question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the
actions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). In determining
consolidation under this rule, the court must assess:
[W]hether the specific risks of prejudice and possible
confusion are overborne by the risk of inconsistent
adjudications of common factual and legal issues, the burden
on parties, witnesses and available judicial resources posed
by multiple lawsuits, the length of time required to conclude
multiple suits as against a single one, and the relative
expense to all concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial
NuFix, Inc. v. Minsurg Corp., No.
8:10-CV-2315-T-33AFP, 2011 WL 589531, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb.
10, 2011). A court's decision to consolidate similar
cases is discretionary. Id. After considering the
above factors and applicable law, the Court will not
consolidate Boatman's cases. This case concerns
deliberate indifference to his medical dental needs and the
other suit concerns due process violations over procedures at
the facility where Boatman resides. Because the two cases are
substantially different, the Court denies the motion to
next takes issues with Defendant Dotty Riddle for unclear
reasons, and he may want to dismiss her and others from this
suit. As best the Court can tell, Boatman wants an
opportunity to clarify the record on the proper names of some
Defendants. Because of Boatman's pro se status,
and in an abundance of caution, the Court will dismiss no
Defendants, but will grant him leave to file an amended
complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 so he can
name only those individuals who he wishes to sue. If Boatman
no longer wishes to pursue this case against Defendants
Riddle, Barreto, and Naryshkin then he need not name them in
the amended complaint. To be clear, however, Boatman may not
add new defendants or claims in the amended complaint without
leave of Court.
filing an amended complaint, Boatman must follow the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires a plaintiff to make
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). This requirement ensures that a defendant has fair
notice of what the claim is and the grounds on which it
rests. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
561-63 (2007). A plaintiff must also state plausible causes
of actions, meaning he must allege “more than labels
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action will not do.” Id.;
Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 556-7 (11th Cir.
1984) (noting that conclusory and vague allegations will not
state a cause of action for civil rights violations under 42
U.S.C. § 1983).
may also sue only the defendants responsible for allegedly
violating his constitutional or federal statutory rights. A
succinct statement of the specific constitutional or
statutory rights that have been violated is needed in the
section titled, “Statement of Claim.” It cannot
merely list constitutional rights without supporting facts
and describing how each defendant is involved in the alleged
violation(s). See, e.g., Williams v.
Bennett, 689 F.2d 1370, 1380-81 (11th Cir. 1982)
(stating “where a plaintiff seeks to impose liability
on one who is not an active participant in the alleged
constitutional deprivation, that plaintiff must allege and
establish an affirmative causal connection between the
defendant's conduct and the constitutional
deprivation”). There must also be allegations on how he
has been damaged, harmed, or injured by Defendants'
actions or omissions.
it is now
Plaintiff Rayvon Boatman's Limited Motion for
Clarification of the Record Only (Doc. 11) is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part.
a. Boatman's request to dismiss Defendants Dorothy
Riddle, Angela Barreto, and George F. Naryshkin is
GRANTED to the extent that he may file an
amended complaint consistent with this Order on or before
July 30, 2019 Failure to file an amended complaint
will cause the Court to dismiss those Defendants without
b. Boatman's request to consolidate this case with
Boatman v. Sawyer, No. 2:18-cv-418-FtM-38MRM is
Defendant Dorothy Riddle's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is
DENIED as moot. DONE and
ORDERED in Fort ...