IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PITTSBURGH

EDWARD MAJOR, ) )

) CASE NO. 2:22-CV-00168-RAL Plaintiff, )

) vs. RICHARD A. LANZILLO ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ) SCI GREENE, C.O. DILLER, ) CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, SCI- ) ORDER CONCERNING THE FILING OF GREENE; T. JELLOTS, RESPONDING ) AMENDED COMPLAINTS LIEUTENANT, SCI-GREENE; MICHAEL ) ZAKEN, FACILITY MANAGER, SCI- ) IN RE: ECF NOS. 24, 27 GREENE; C. GREENAWALT, FACILITY GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR, SCI- ) ) GREENE; GRIEVANCE COORD. M. ) ANDRETTI, FACILITY GRIEVANCE ) COORDINATOR, SCI-GREENE; MR. ) ERIC ARMEL, FACILITY MANAGER, ) SCI-FAYETTE; JAIMIE GARDENER, ) LAW LIBRARIAN; OHRMAN, DOCTOR ) HERBIK, JAMES BRIGHT, ERICA ) BENNING, TINA WALKER, LT ) MATIYASIC, CO 1, CO 2 ROVER/JOHN ) DOE, ) ) Defendants, ) )

Plaintiff Edward Major (“Major”), acting pro se, has filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 24) and a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 27) both apparently in response to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, as docketed at ECF No. 19.1 The Second Amended Complaint names new defendants not identified in the first Amended Complaint, and raises additional claims, noting that such allegations are contained “within both complaints second amended

1 That motion has been denied as moot given Major’s filing of his Amended Complaint. See ECF No. 26. complaint and now with add ons.” ECF No. 27, p. 1. Given this statement, it appears to the Court that Major is attempting to incorporate by reference his Second Amended Complaint into his First Amended Complaint, which he cannot do. See, e.g., Whitaker v. SCI-Fayette,

, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 2, 2022).

Thus, Major is herewith ORDERED to file a new comprehensive Amended Complaint within thirty days of the date of this order. In drafting this new pleading, Major should be aware that his new complaint must identify all defendants in the caption as well as identify them in the body of the document. Also, Major shall state the basis for his claims against each defendant and shall label his pleading “Amended Complaint,” and provide the case number. This must be a complete, comprehensive document that includes all the bases for Major’s claims. Claims or defendants that are not included in this new pleading will not be considered part of this case.

See, e.g., Mezzacappa v. Wilson,

, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 19, 2022). Upon the filing of this new Amended Complaint, Major’s previous pleadings will be struck from the docket. Major is ordered to provide the Court with a completed United States Marshal’s USM 285 form for all previously unnamed defendants as well as a copy of the Amended Complaint. Upon receipt of those documents, the Court will order the United States Marshal to execute service on those defendants. The appropriate forms are provided together with this order and should be returned to the Clerk’s office when he forwards his new Amended Complaint for filing.

The Defendants’ deadline for filing a response to the previous amended complaints is hereby terminated. New deadlines for responding to the Amended Complaint will be issued upon its filing. So ORDERED. DATED this 19th day of September, 2022.

BY THE COURT:

RICHARD A. LANZILLO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE