Washington v. Mattis et al

Filing 84

ORDER GRANTING Plf's 81 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint as set out. The Clerk is DIRECTED to docket Plf's "Third Amended Complaint" as the operative Second Amended Complaint in this case. Signed by District Judge Terry F. Moorer on 3/31/2020. (tot)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TIFFANY M. WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK T. ESPER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00528-TFM-MU

ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 81,
filed 3/19/20), in which Plaintiff, now proceeding pro se, seeks leave to amend her complaint to
bring five new claims for breach of contract. Plaintiff attaches to the motion a “Third Amended
Complaint” and other documents. Docs. 81-1 to 81-7. Defendants timely responded that they do
not oppose the motion to amend. Doc. 83.
The Court notes it never granted the motion for leave to file the proposed Second Amended
Complaint to which Plaintiff cites (Doc. 58-1). Rather, on July 19, 2019, the Court granted the
motion to stay and held the motion to amend in abeyance pending the resolution of the companion
case in the D.C. Circuit. See Doc. 63. After the stay was lifted, the Court instructed Plaintiff to
refile a motion to amend and a proposed amended complaint in accordance with its ruling on
related matters because certain issues from the prior motion had been rendered moot by the D.C.
Circuit’s ruling. See Doc. 79. The newly filed Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 81) is Plaintiff’s
response to that Order and thus supersedes Plaintiff’s prior attempt (Doc. 58). Likewise, Plaintiff’s
proposed “Third Amended Complaint” (Doc. 81-1) would actually be the second amended
complaint. The Court also notes that the numbering of the proposed amended complaint begins at
Page 1 of 2

Paragraph 47. Nevertheless, the proposed pleading does not appear to be intended as an addendum
to a prior version of the complaint, but rather, as a stand-alone document. Moreover, the Court
construes pro se pleadings liberally. See Dixon v. Hodges, 887 F.3d 1235, 1237 (11th Cir. 2018)
(citing Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008)). Therefore, the Court construes
the document entitled “Third Amended Complaint” as the Second Amended Complaint.
Accordingly, the motion for leave to amend (Doc. 81) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court
is DIRECTED to docket Plaintiff’s “Third Amended Complaint” (Doc. 81-1) as the operative
Second Amended Complaint in this case.
DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of March 2020.
/s/ Terry F. Moorer
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2