IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

EUGENE JONES PLAINTIFF ADC #169865

v. Case No. 4:22-CV-00084-LPR-ERE

ARKANSAS DIVISION OF CORRECTION, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiff Eugene Jones is currently being housed at the Delta Regional Unit of the Arkansas Division of Correction.1 On January 27, 2022, he filed a Complaint bringing multiple, unrelated grievances against more than 20 named Defendants over a years-long period of time.2 On March 9, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Edie R. Ervin advised Mr. Jones of several deficiencies in his Complaint.3 She gave Mr. Jones the opportunity to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies.4 And she cautioned him that the failure to file an amended complaint within 30 days would result in the Court screening his original Complaint and likely dismissing some or all of his claims.5 Mr. Jones did not file an amended complaint within the allotted time frame. On April 12, 2022, Judge Ervin screened the original Complaint and identified two cognizable claims against Defendant Stringfellow, a dentist, regarding his alleged failure to provide Mr. Jones adequate dental treatment.6 Judge Ervin recommended that Mr. Jones be

1 At the time Mr. Jones filed his Complaint, he was being housed in the Cummins Unit. See Compl. (Doc. 2) at 3. More recently, he has notified the Court that he is currently being housed in the Delta Regional Unit. See Mot. for Order and Notice of Change of Address (Doc. 20). 2 Compl. (Doc. 2). 3 Order (Doc. 10). 4 Id. at 4. 5 Id. 6 Partial Recommended Disposition (Doc. 13) at 3. allowed to proceed with his medical deliberate-indifference and retaliation claims against Defendant Stringfellow, and that all other claims and Defendants be dismissed without prejudice as improperly joined.7 The Court granted Mr. Jones an extension of time to file objections to the Partial Recommended Disposition (PRD). But Mr. Jones ultimately chose not to do so. Instead, he re-

filed excerpts from his Complaint in this case, which he styled as an Amended Complaint.8 Notably, the Amended Complaint doesn’t name Dr. Stringfellow as a Defendant.9 And, among the pages he chose to re-file from his original Complaint, Mr. Jones specifically excluded the page detailing his allegations against Dr. Stringfellow.10 Thus, it appears to the Court that Mr. Jones may have amended his complaint—at least in part—in order to pursue alternative claims brought in his original Complaint. To date, no Defendant, including Dr. Stringfellow, has been served in this matter. Therefore, it appears that nothing in Rule 15 should prohibit Mr. Jones from amending his Complaint as a matter of course.11 It is well-settled law that an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint.12 Mr.

Jones’s original Complaint is no longer operative, and his Amended Complaint has not been screened. The Court therefore declines to adopt Judge Ervin’s PRD (Doc. 13), which had recommended service on Dr. Stringfellow and the dismissal of Mr. Jones’s remaining claims.

7 Id. 8 Am. Compl. (Doc. 16). 9 Id. at 1. 10 In the PRD, Judge Ervin found that Mr. Jones had stated medical deliberate-indifference and retaliation claims against Dr. Stringfellow on page 10 of his original Complaint. See Doc. 13 at 3. Although the Amended Complaint contains passing allegations against Dr. Stringfellow, it does not contain the portion of the original Complaint that Judge Ervin found actionable. See Doc. 16 at 2. 11 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 12 In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc.,

(8th Cir. 2000). Instead, the Court refers this case back to Judge Ervin for the purpose of screening Mr. Jones’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 16). IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of December 2022.

LEE P. ee UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE