SCHAAP v. JUSTICE et al

Filing 12

ORDER dismissing Plaintiff's [10-1] First Amended Complaint and denying Plaintiff's 10 and 11 Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. This action is hereby dismissed in its entirety. Please see the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 07/18/2018. (lcapm1) Modified document type on 7/18/2018 (zjd).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MELISSA F. JUSTICE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________ )
KEVIN SCHAAP,

Case No. 17-cv-2837 (APM)

ORDER
On May 15, 2018, the court issued an Order dismissing Plaintiff Kevin Schaap’s Complaint
without prejudice for failure to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)’s “short and plain”
statement requirement. See Order, ECF No. 8, at 1. The court, however, granted Plaintiff leave
to file a conforming pleading within 30 days. See id. at 2. Presumably in response to the court’s
Order, on June 14, 2018, the court received from Plaintiff a “First Amended Complaint” and a
“Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint.” See Letter from Kevin Schaap, ECF
No. 10 [hereinafter Schaap Ltr.]. The 103-page document styled First Amended Complaint,
except for some formatting changes, is identical to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Compare Compl., ECF
No. 1, with Schaap Ltr., Ex. A, ECF No. 10-1 [hereinafter First Am. Compl.]; Schaap Ltr., Ex. B,
ECF No. 10-2 (exhibits to First Amended Complaint). Plaintiff admits as much. See First Am.
Compl. at 30 (stating that “plaintiff’s amended complaint remains unchanged except with respect
to” text contained on page 30). Plaintiff thus has failed to comply with the court’s Order of May
15, 2018, directing him to file a “short and plain” statement. The court therefore dismisses
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failure to abide by Rule 8(a) and as a sanction for ignoring
the court’s Order.

The court also denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint.
See Schaap Ltr. at 2–5. Plaintiff seeks to file an additional pleading because he posits that his
case has been “hi-jacked” and he wishes to incorporate additional facts from “[s]ources [who] tell
the plaintiff that arrests and indictments are now, imminent.” Id. at 3. This is not a valid ground
justifying leave to amend. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (authorizing courts to
deny leave to amend in cases involving “bad faith . . . on the part of the movant,” “repeated failure
to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed,” and “futility of amendment”).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the court sua sponte dismisses Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint without prejudice and denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Complaint. This action is dismissed in its entirety.
This is a final, appealable order.

Dated: July 18, 2018

Amit P. Mehta
United States District Judge

2