Davis et al v. Alabama Limestone County et al
Filing
54
OPINION AND ORDER denying 29 MOTION for Reconsideration re 26 Order Striking Document filed by Eric S Davis, Shelia D Davis, John H Davis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 9/30/16. (kjp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
JOHN H. DAVIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JUDGE JEANNE W. ANDERSON, et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
) CAUSE NO.: 2:16-CV-120-PPS-PRC
)
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Reconsider Magistrate Paul R. Cherry’s Strike
Sua Sponte of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint [DE 29], filed by Plaintiffs on August 10,
2016. No Defendant has filed a response, and the time in which to do so has passed.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 11, 2016, Plaintiffs initiated this cause of action by filing a Complaint. At a hearing
on April 20, 2016, Chief Judge Philip P. Simon struck the Complaint and granted leave for Plaintiffs
to file an amended complaint within 60 days.
On June 16, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.
On August 2, 2016, Defendant Albert L. Sprinkle, M.D. filed a Motion to Dismiss.
On August 4, 2016, Plaintiffs, without the Court’s leave or consent from the opposing
parties, filed a Second Amended Complaint.
On August 5, 2016, the undersigned Magistrate Judge issued an Order striking the Second
Amended Complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
On August 10, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Reconsider.
ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides:
(a) Amendments Before Trial.
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once
as a matter of course within:
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required,
21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service
of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.
(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading
only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court
should freely give leave when justice so requires.
Plaintiffs argue that, because the Amended Complaint was filed with the Court’s leave, Rule
15 permitted them to file the Second Amended Complaint as a matter of course.
In Rodgers v. Lincoln Towing Serv., Inc., 771 F.2d 194 (7th Cir. 1985), the plaintiff argued
that Rule 15 permitted him to amend his complaint as of right. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
disagreed, holding that the plaintiff had lost his right to amend as a matter of course because he had
already amended his complaint once, and “[t]hat the [first] amendments were ‘technical’ ones
requested by the district court judge . . . is of no consequence.” Id. at 203-04; accord Hatcher v. Bd.
of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ., 2014 WL 5420206, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2014) (holding that the plaintiff
could not file a second amended complaint as a matter of course after she filed a first amended
complaint with the court’s leave); Swoope v. Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp., 2013 WL 149588, at *1 (N.D.
Ind. Jan 14. 2013) (“[A] plaintiff uses up that right [to amend as a matter of course] when he first
amends his complaint.”).
2
Though Plaintiffs had the right to amend their pleading once as a matter of course, they have
already amended their pleading once, so that right has been extinguished. Rule 15(a) does not permit
them to file a Second Amended Complaint as a matter of course. After the Amended Complaint,
Plaintiffs must obtain either the opposing parties’ written consent or the Court’s leave to make
additional amendments.
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion to Reconsider Magistrate
Paul R. Cherry’s Strike Sua Sponte of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint [DE 29].
SO ORDERED this 30th day of September, 2016.
s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?