Mitchell v. Clark et al, No. 1:2012cv00878 - Document 9 (E.D. Va. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re: 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT against M. Cook, Commonwealth of Virginia, A. Clarke. Signed by District Judge T. S. Ellis, III on 11/30/2012. Copy sent per Order of 11/30/2012.(stas)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THEr; EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ) |gj ;j3\] ; !!( ' A, ¢ ¢.,' 'ipi'n VIP'" - l:12cv878(TSE/JFA) ) A. Clark, et ah, Defendants. !;j-i I clt;?'' ^"^stv ....:;..;,, : L : j ) . ) ) v L |ll j NOW 302012 j NOV 3 0 2012 Alexandria Division Vernon Lee Mitchell, Plaintiff, ;(J._. ij i ''il j J ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Vernon Lee Mitchell, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff has applied to proceed in forma pauperis. By Order dated September 24,2012, plaintiff was informed of deficiencies in his initial complaint, and he was allowed an opportunity to particularize and amend his allegations within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff also was directed to sign and file a Consent Form and an affidavit concerning his exhaustion of administrative remedies. Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with any partof the Order would result in dismissal ofthe complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). On October 23, 2012, plaintiff moved for an extension of time to comply with the September 24 Order, and asked to be provided with another copy ofthe "Inmate Trust Fund Statement." Plaintiffs motion for a thirty-day extension oftime was granted by Order dated October 25, and an Inmate Account Report Form was forwarded to plaintiff. Plaintiffhas now submitted an amended complaint.' After careful review, plaintiffs 'Plaintifffailed to return both the Consent Form and the exhaustion affidavit, as he was instructed to do in the September 24 Order. Ordinarily under such circumstances, the compliant would be dismissed without prejudice onthatbasis. Here, however, it ispossible that plaintiffs request to be provided with an additional copy ofthe "Inmate Trust Fund Statement" was misinterpreted. Since ! -----J

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.