United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Kaymani D. West, United States Magistrate Judge.
matter comes before the court on Plaintiff’s four
pending Motions to Amend his Complaint. ECF Nos. 44, 47, 55,
and 60. The court also considers Plaintiff’s Motion for
Conspiracy, Special Verdict, and Liability of Multiple
Defendants. ECF No. 52.
9, 2016, prior to the court’s May 12th deadline for
amended pleadings, ECF No. 34, Plaintiff filed his second
Motion to Amend his Complaint,  ECF No. 44. In this new motion,
captioned as “Motions to Amend Pleading - §
16-5-10 Conspiracy – 18 U.S.C.A. § 1701 Obstruct
or Retard the Mail, ” Plaintiff asserts additional
causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional
distress (“IIED”), defamation, and invasion of
privacy related to strip searches that occurred in the
Behavioral Management Unit (“BMU”) of the
Spartanburg County Detention Center. Id. at 1. The
remaining allegations in the Motion to Amend reiterate
previous allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint
and Supplemental Pleading attached to the Complaint.
See ECF Nos. 1 and 1-5.
15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
the court should “freely give leave [to amend] when
justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). The
undersigned finds that it is in the interests of justice to
allow the amendment of the Complaint to include
Plaintiff’s claim for IIED, defamation, and invasion of
privacy. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, ECF
No. 44, is granted.
11, 2016, Plaintiff filed another Motion to Amend his
Complaint. ECF No. 47. Plaintiff begins his motion by
requesting the “Spillman Report” and copies of
correspondence from the Spartanburg County Clerk of Court.
Plaintiff also moves for “punitive damages due to lies,
the banding of all the defendants to violate [him] are
motivated by evil intent!” Id. The remaining
allegations in the motion are the same issues contained in
Plaintiff’s prior Motion to Amend. See ECF No.
extent that Plaintiff requests the court take action
concerning his requests for certain information, including
but not limited to the court’s interaction with the
Spartanburg County Clerk of Court’s Office, these
requests are denied. Furthermore, as noted in ECF No. 40,
while Plaintiff is allowed to allege certain
damages-including punitive damages-the court is making no
ruling as to whether punitive damages are appropriate in this
matter. As noted above, the remaining allegations have
already been included in prior motions-including claims
involving Defendant McDonald. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
Motion is granted only to the extent that he is
allowed to assert a claim for punitive damages.
25, 2016, Plaintiff filed “Motions to Amend due to
extraordinary circumstance.” ECF No. 55. Plaintiff
asserts that he is no longer “hindered by the powerful
drug (Seroquel)” and now has a “clear
brain” so that he can better articulate his claims.
Id. Plaintiff’s allegations in this motion
concern claims of excessive force and lack of medical
attention by Defendants Brock and Reyes. These claims have
already been set forth in “Claim 4” of
Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF No. 1 at 4. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, ECF No. 55, is
27, 2016, Plaintiff filed yet another Motion to Amend his
Complaint, requesting the he be allowed to amend because his
“brain is recovering due to been [sic] off drug.”
ECF No. 60. Plaintiff again reiterates claims of deliberate
indifference, conditions of confinement, current and future
claims for IIED, and claims related to lack of mail service.
Additionally, Plaintiff alleges overt acts in furtherance of
conspiracy to deny him medical treatment. Id. at 1.
this Motion contains the same allegations as previously
raised by Plaintiff and contained in or incorporated into his
Complaint by the granting of prior motions, Plaintiff’s
Motion to Amend, ECF No. 60, is denied.