Blacksmith Multi-Media, Inc. et al v. The State of Alabama et al(MAG+)

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: This case will proceed on the amended complaint (doc. 35 ) filed on 4/3/2015 and against only the named individuals in that complaint: Lorenza Patrick, Dr. William H. Harris, John F. Knight, Jr., Candy Capel, Elton Dea n, Marvin Wiggins, Allan Pizzato, Ferris Stephens, and Gregory Griffin. The claims presented in the original complaint are superseded by the claims presented in the amended complaint. It is ORDERED that the plaintiffs' motions for leave to file an amended complaint (doc. 37 & 38 ) be and are hereby DENIED as further set out in the order. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve the defendants named in the amended complaint (doc. 35 ) at the addresses provided in the proposed amended complaints attached to the plaintiffs' motions to amend. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 5/7/2015. (dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
SHARON E. BLACK and ROBERT E.
BLACK,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LORENZA PATRICK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACT. NO. 2:14cv651-WKW

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
On July 7, 2014, pro se plaintiffs Sharon Black and Robert E. Black (“the Blacks”)
filed this action on behalf of themselves and Blacksmith Multi-Media, Inc. alleging claims
of “[p]ossible fraud, [m]isuse of [f]ederal [f]unding, [c]opyright [i]nfringement and
[i]ntellectual [p]roperty and [i]dentify [t]heft.” (Doc. # 1). The plaintiffs also filed a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. # 2).
On August 5, 2014, the court held a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in
forma pauperis.1 At that time, the plaintiffs were informed that the corporation could not
represent itself, and that because the Blacks were not lawyers, they could not represent the
corporation. After being given the opportunity to retain counsel for the corporation, the
Blacks failed to do so and the corporation was dismissed as a plaintiff on November 13,
2014.

1

# 33.

The court subsequently granted the plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See Doc.

The court held a status conference on October 16, 2014. During the status conference,
the court advised the plaintiffs that the original complaint did not meet the requirements of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and described for them the proper manner in which to
proceed. In an order entered on October 22, 2014, the court explained that while a complaint
need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007), it must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570); Sinatrainal
v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1268 (11th Cir. 2009). A complaint states a facially
plausible claim for relief “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678.
The plaintiffs were directed to file an amended complaint detailing more precisely
their claims and the factual bases for those claims. See Doc. # 22. They were advised that
they must present their claims with clarity, detailing factual allegations that
are material to each specific count and describing how each defendant
violated their rights. The amended complaint must set forth short and plain
statements showing why the plaintiffs are entitled to relief, and each allegation
should be simple, concise and direct. See FED.R.CIV.P. 8.
(Doc. # 22) (emphasis added)
On November 5, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a amended complaint (doc. # 23) and a
motion for leave to file an amended complaint (doc. # 24). A review of the plaintiffs’
amended complaint demonstrated that it was a “shotgun pleading,” and the court denied the

2

motion to amend. (Doc. # 26). It also struck the amended complaint, and directed the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that complied with the court’s previous orders. Id.
The plaintiffs were directed, in part to file an amended complaint that contained the
following information:
a.
Identifies the individual(s) the plaintiffs seek to name as defendants and
provides facts to show that particular individual’s participation or
involvement in their claim;
b.
Identifies each claim and any claims that can be shown closely related
to it, i.e., arising out of the same incident or facts, relative to actions taken
against them by each named defendant;
c.
Describes with clarity the specific factual allegations that are material
to each specific count against each named defendant;
d.

Describe how each named defendant violated the plaintiffs’ rights;

(Id. at 5) (emphasis in original).
On April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and on April 2, 2015, they
filed a motion to amend the complaint. (Doc. # 31 & 32). The court granted the motion to
amend (doc. # 34) but struck the entities listed in the caption of the complaint as they were
not properly named defendants. See Doc. # 33. The plaintiffs were specifically informed
that this action would proceed against the named individuals in the complaint: Lorenza
Patrick, Dr. William H. Harris, John F. Knight, Jr., Candy Capel, Elton Dean, Marvin
Wiggins, Allan Pizzato, Ferris Stephens, and Gregory Griffin. However, because the
plaintiffs failed to provide addresses for the individually named defendants, the court ordered
the plaintiffs to provide the Clerk’s Office with the correct address for each named defendant
3

in the amended complaint. See Doc. # 36.
Instead of supplying the Clerk’s Office with the correct addresses for the named
defendants, the plaintiffs filed two motions for leave to amend the complaint (docs. # 37 &
38) in which they seek to add additional defendants.2 With respect to each newly named
defendant, the plaintiffs assert that “[t]he defendant personally participated in the violation
of plaintiff’s rights, and I want money damages.” See Docs. # 37 & 38. Simply listing the
additional defendants, without stating any facts about how these defendants participated in
or violated their rights, is insufficient as a matter of law to state claims against the proposed
additional defendants. A complaint states a facially plausible claim for relief “when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw a reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The court cannot
draw any inference that any of the additional defendants are liable for any alleged
misconduct.
While leave to amend should be “freely given when justice so requires,” the court can
deny amendments when (1) the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party; (2)
there has been undue delay or bad faith on the part of the moving party; or (3) the amendment
would be futile. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); See
also Jameson v. Arrow Co., 75 F.3d 1528, 1534 (11th Cir. 1996). Under FED.R.CIV.P.

2

In the April 20, 2015 motion to amend (doc. # 37), the plaintiffs seek to add 96 defendants to
this action. In the May 5, 2015 motion to amend (doc. # 38), the plaintiffs seek to add an additional 30
defendants, which if permitted, would bring the total number of defendants named in this action to 134.

4

15(a)(2), a “court should freely give live to amend when justice so requires.” “A district court
need not, however, allow an amendment . . . where amendment would be futile.” Bryant v.
Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 1001) (citing Foman, 371 U.S. at 182).
Moreover, undue delay or “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed,” are sufficient reasons to deny a motion to amend. See Foman, 371 U.S.
at 182. The plaintiffs have been given repeated instructions on how to file an amended
complaint. To allow the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to add 134 defendants without any
factual basis about how these defendants participated in or violated their rights would be
prejudicial to the existing defendants as well as the proposed additional defendants. The
plaintiffs have been given multiple opportunities to file an amended complaint that complies
with the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, and they have failed to do so. Any further
attempt to amend the complaint would be futile, and prejudicial to the defendants.
For the reasons as stated, the court concludes that the motions to amend (doc. # 37 &
38) are due to be denied. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182 (holding that “the grant or denial of an
opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the District Court,” and that leave to amend
need not be given when the amendment would be futile).
This case will proceed on the amended complaint3 (doc. # 35) filed on April 3, 2015
and against only the named individuals in that complaint: Lorenza Patrick, Dr. William H.
Harris, John F. Knight, Jr., Candy Capel, Elton Dean, Marvin Wiggins, Allan Pizzato, Ferris
3

The claims presented in the original complaint are superseded by the claims presented in the
amended complaint.

5

Stephens, and Gregory Griffin.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motions for leave to file an amended complaint (doc.
# 37 & 38) be and are hereby DENIED.
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve the defendants named in the amended
complaint (doc. # 35) at the addresses provided in the proposed amended complaints attached
to the plaintiffs’ motions to amend.
Done this 7th day of May, 2015.

/s/Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6