IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
March 10, 2010
ROSCHEIM V. WILKERSON, PLAINTIFF,
MS. SCHAFER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. John E. Jones III
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Plaintiff Roscheim V. Wilkerson ("Plaintiff" or "Wilkerson"), an inmate presently confined at the Huntingdon State Correctional Institution ("SCI Huntingdon") in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, initiated the above action pro se by filing a Complaint under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) Named as Defendants are the following SCI Huntingdon employees: Correctional Officer Hengst, Hearing Examiner Mitchell, Deputy Warden Corbin, Deputy Warden Fisher, Superintendent Lawler, Drug and Alcohol Specialist Schafer, and Drug and Alcohol Supervisor Ciavarella. (See id. at 1, 2 § III.) He has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 5.)
Presently before the Court is a document filed by Plaintiff entitled "Petition to Amend and/or Supplemental Brief for 42 U.S.C. § 1983." (Doc. 7.) In this document, Plaintiff names the same Defendants as in the Complaint and states that he seeks to add a request for injunctive relief in the form of a transfer to a different state facility to his Complaint. (See id.) He states that he seeks this relief because he fears that SCI Huntingdon employees will retaliate against him for filing the instant civil action. (See id.) Because it appears that Plaintiff seeks to add a claim for relief based on an occurrence or event that happened after the filing of his Complaint, his Motion will be granted, and his filing will be construed as a supplement to the Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Accordingly, Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted, and service of the Complaint (Doc. 1) and Supplement (Doc. 7) will be directed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff's Application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5) is construed as a request to proceed without full prepayment of fees and costs, and the Application is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 7) is GRANTED, and this filing is construed as a Supplement to the Complaint.
3. The United States Marshals Service is directed to serve the Complaint (Doc. 1) and Supplement (Doc. 7) on Defendants Hengst, Mitchell, Corbin, Fisher, Lawler, Schafer, and Ciavarella. (See Doc. 1 at 1, 2 § III.)
John E. Jones III United States District Judge
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.