IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
DEAN EFFARAGE FARROW, #111 719
DONAL CAMBPELL, et al.,
O R D E R
This matter is before the court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Upon review of the complaint, the court finds that the pleading contains claims that are not
related to each other. That is, this action contains claims based on a dispute over medical
care and treatment, retaliation as a result of a previous lawsuit filed by Plaintiff, an unlawful
search and seizure regarding information in Plaintiff's PMOD, and interference with legal
and non-legal mail. In addition to the variety of claims, Plaintiff identifies as Defendants
persons located at two different institutions within the jurisdiction of this District. Further,
the complaint merely contains general conclusions of constitutional violations, and fails to
identify factual allegations material to specific counts lodged against the named defendants
with respect to any violations of Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
In light of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that on or before May 17, 2006, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint
Case 2:06-cv-00360-ID-WC Document 3 Filed 05/04/2006 Page 1 of 3
Farrow v. Campbell et al (INMATE2)
on a form for use in filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. See Local Rule 9.1 (requiring pro
se litigants to utilize court's forms). Plaintiff's original complaint shall be superseded by this
amended complaint. That means Plaintiff shall no longer rely on the original complaint.
That being said, the claims and defendants in the complaint form should be less numerous
than those contained in the original complaint due to the following pleading requirements.
It is necessary for Plaintiff to file a separate complaint for each claim unless the claims are