UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA RODNEY HATCHER (#584375) CIVIL ACTION NO.

VERSUS 22-870-BAJ-EWD

LOGAN ROBICHAUX, ET AL.

ORDER

Plaintiff Rodney Hatcher (“Plaintiff”), who is representing himself and who is confined at the Louisiana State Penitentiary (“LSP”) in Angola, Louisiana, filed his original “Complaint” on or about November 3, 2022 against Logan Robichaux (“Robichaux”).1 In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff only provides conclusory allegations of retaliation2 and notes that four prison officials were involved, including Robichaux, Lt. Well, Lt. Packet, and Msg. Matthews, but Plaintiff does not state how these officials were involved.3 Plaintiff also lists “EMS # 3” as a defendant but does not state any facts against this individual. However, in the documents that make up Hatcher’s original Complaint, it appears he is alleging that on March 17, 2022, he was sprayed with chemical agent and/or gas multiple times for no reason.4 To successfully plead a cause of action in a civil rights case, a plaintiff must ordinarily state a set of facts that shows each defendant’s participation in the alleged wrong.5 The Supreme Court has held that “[e]ach Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own misconduct.”6 Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not currently state a claim.

1 R. Doc. 1. The original “Complaint” was just some handwritten notes on an administrative grievance response from LSP with other document, which were in an envelope postmarked November 3, 2022.As the initial complaint was a mix of filings, it is unclear who Hatcher intended to name as Defendants. 2 See, e.g., R. Doc. 4, p. 4 (“Defendants act in retaliation with malicious actions … for abusing the use of chemical agent on offenders as an act of retaliation.”) 3 R. Doc. 4, p. 4. 4 R. Doc. 1, pp. 7-8. 5 Jacquez v. Procunier,

(5th Cir. 1986). 6 Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). Rather than dismissing his lawsuit at this time, Plaintiff will be given another opportunity to allege specific facts that he believes support his claims against the relevant officials.7 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, by no later than April 6, 2023, Plaintiff Rodney Hatcher must file an amended complaint on the standardized § 1983 lawsuit form (same form used before), stating specific facts to support his claims against any individual or entity he wishes to name as a

defendant. In any amended complaint, Hatcher must provide the details of his claims as explained below. Hatcher is placed on notice that this lawsuit may be dismissed if he files another § 1983 lawsuit stating the same limited facts originally given without providing more details. The amended complaint must specifically address the following: 1) Who do you allege used excessive force against you on March 17, 2022; 2) Explain the circumstances surrounding the use of force (in other words, were orders given, did you comply with orders, what injuries do you allege you suffered because of the use of force, if any);

3) What type of force was used; 4) If you claim any officers saw the alleged use of force, explain where these officers were in relation to you and the officer(s) who used force against you;

5) How quickly was force used; 6) Did you request medical treatment after the use of force; 7) From whom did you request medical treatment; 8) What medical treatment did you request; 9) What medical treatment was given, if any, and when;

7 See Eason v. Thaler,

(5th Cir. 1994). See also, e.g., In re Am. Airlines, Inc., Privacy Litig.,

(N.D. Tex. 2005) (“[D]istrict courts often afford plaintiffs at least one opportunity to cure pleading deficiencies before dismissing a case, unless it is clear that the defects are incurable or the plaintiffs advise the court that they are unwilling or unable to amend in a manner that will avoid dismissal.”). 10) Since you appear to be alleging the excessive force used on March 17, 2022 was done in retaliation, explain what you believe is the motive for the retaliation (in other words, what right were you trying to exercise; did you file a lawsuit or complaint against an officer; if so, who and when). Hatcher is placed on notice than an amended complaint takes the place of the previous

complaint.8 His amended complaint will be the operative complaint for this lawsuit and must include all defendants, claims, and facts. Hatcher is instructed to place the cause number “3:22cv00870” on the amended complaint and on all documents that he files in this lawsuit. Hatcher is also placed on notice that this lawsuit may be dismissed without further notice if he fails to timely respond to this Order. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on March 9, 2023. S

ERIN WILDER-DOOMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8 Clark v. Tarrant County, Texas,

(5th Cir. 1986).