Gilard v USA

Filing 17

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 8 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by Marlon O Gilard. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is GRANTED only to the extent he seeks a trial by jury. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 4/7/2017. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARLON O. GILARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:16-cv-537-JPG-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 8). For the reasons
set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint to include additional medical records and set
forth information concerning additional medical issues that Plaintiff asserts were unknown at the
time he filed his original complaint. Plaintiff also seeks to invoke his right to a trial by jury.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a party may amend a pleading, and that
leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires. Yet, “courts in their sound
discretion may deny a proposed amendment if the moving party has unduly delayed in filing a
motion, if the opposing party would suffer undue prejudice, or if the pleading is futile.” Soltys v.
Costello, 520 F.3d 737, 743 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Campania Mgmt. Co. v. Rooks, Pitts & Poust,
290 F.3d 843, 848-49 (7th Cir. 2002)).
Under SDIL-LR 15.1, “a proposed amendment to a pleading or amended pleading itself”
must be submitted with a motion to amend a pleading. As such, Local Rule 15.1 does not allow
for amendment of a pleading by interlineation — the amended complaint must stand on its own
Page 1 of 2

without reference to any document Plaintiff may have filed earlier.
In this instance, Plaintiff did not provide the Court with an amended complaint that can
stand on its own; rather, Plaintiff provided the Court with a number of documents, mainly various
medical records. Plaintiff has not proffered any additional allegations against Defendant related
to these documents. Plaintiff’s proposed amendment to his complaint fails to comply with Local
Rule 15.1 and, as it fails to lodge any particular allegations against Defendant, it appears to be
futile and his motion to amend to supplement his complaint with these documents is DENIED.
However, insofar as Plaintiff seeks a trial by jury, his motion is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 7, 2017

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2