The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ellen Segal Huvelle United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss and for sanctions and plaintiff's opposition thereto.*fn1 For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
A. Civil Action No. 05-1514
Plaintiff's lawsuit began in 2005 with the filing of Banks v. York, No. 05-1514 (ESH) (D.D.C. filed July 29, 2005) ("Civil Action No. 05-1514").*fn2 He brought the action against the District of Columbia, the Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA"), and nine individual defendants for alleged violations of rights protected by the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and for negligent training and supervision under District of Columbia law.*fn3 In addition, plaintiff alleged that defendants detained him for 39 days past the day on which he should have been released from the District's Central Detention Facility ("D.C. Jail"). Plaintiff thus belonged to a class action where the members of the class raised "overdetention" claims in a lawsuit pending before Judge Lamberth. See Barnes v. District of Columbia, No. 06-315 (RCL) (D.D.C. filed Feb. 23, 2006).
In Civil Action No. 05-1514, the District of Columbia defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint.*fn4 Pursuant to the Court's September 17, 2007 Memorandum Opinion and Order, plaintiff was allowed to pursue the following claims against the District of Columbia:
(1) his Section 1983 claim for overdetention; (2) his Eighth Amendment claims based on the denial of a diabetic diet and the lack of heat at the D.C. Jail; (3) his claim regarding the opening of his legal mail outside of his presence; and (4) his negligent training and supervision claims.
Banks v. York, No. 05-1514 (D.D.C. Sept. 17, 2007) (order granting in part and denying in part defendants' dispositive motions). In addition, plaintiff also was allowed to "pursue his Section 1983 claim for overdetention and his negligent training and supervision claims against Devon Brown in his individual capacity." Id.
B. October 18, 2007 Status Hearing
The Court held a status hearing on October 18, 2007. At that time, the Court proposed the separation of plaintiff's overdetention claims from the other constitutional and common law tort claims that were still alive following the disposition of defendants' motions. The Court heard from the parties' and, hearing no objection, orally instructed plaintiff to file a new complaint to incorporate the surviving claims with the exception of his overdetention claims. To this end, the Court issued an Order regarding case management which in relevant part provided:
[A]ll of the remaining claims in plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint that do not relate to his overdetention (i.e., plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against the District of Columbia based on the denial of a diabetic diet and the lack of heat at the D.C. Jail, his First Amendment claim against the District regarding the opening of his legal mail outside of his presence, and his negligent and training and supervision claim against the District relating to the provision of dental care) are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to be re-filed by plaintiff as set forth herein. Only plaintiff's constitutional and common law claims against the District of Columbia and Devon Brown relating to his overdetention shall remain part of this case, which shall be transferred to Judge Royce C. Lamberth as a related case to Barnes v. District of Columbia, No. 06-315 (D.D.C.). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that . . . plaintiff shall file a new complaint containing a short and plain statement of the four surviving nonoverdetention-related claims listed in the preceding paragraph, all of which remain against the District of Columbia only. The new complaint shall not include any new claims or defendants, except that plaintiff may, if he wishes, add a new state-law claim that relates to the provision of dental care and may identify additional defendants with respect to that claim. The new complaint shall be assigned a new case number for administrative purposes only but shall otherwise relate back to and be treated as if it were a further amended complaint in plaintiff's existing case. Plaintiff shall not be required to pay a filing fee upon the filing of the new complaint, nor shall he be required to serve the new complaint on the District of Columbia. If plaintiff chooses to name any additional defendants, however, he will be required to serve those defendants.
Banks v. York, No. 05-1514 (D.D.C. Oct. 18, 2007) (order regarding case administration) (emphasis added). Plaintiff filed his new complaint on November 9, 2007. Banks v. District of Columbia, No. 07-2115 (ESH) ...