Filing 61

ENTRY denying 57 Motion for Leave to Amend a Fourth Time. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/1/2013. Copy Mailed. (JD)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ANTHONY R. MEINEKE, Plaintiff, vs. ALAN FINNAN, JACK BINION , CHARLES A. PENFOLD, CHARLES FOX, BRUCE LEMMON, and KEITH BUTTS Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case. No. 1:11-cv-01624-TWP-DKL ENTRY This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint Seeking Fourth Amendment. (Dkt. 57). Through discovery, Plaintiff alleges he has learned the identity of an accountant, Jerry Rinker, who is employed by the Pendleton Correctional Facility (“Pendleton”). Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint by adding Mr. Rinker as a party to this action. Plaintiff has filed three amended complaints, to which Defendants have filed responsive pleadings. Adding a new party at this stage of the litigation requires leave of court. See Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff has not tendered a proposed fourth amended complaint, which would supersede the third amended complaint in its entirety. On this basis alone, the motion must be denied. See Local Rule 15-1 (motions to amend must include a signed proposed amended pleading and must reproduce the entire pleading as amended). In any event, the proposed amendment also fails on the merits. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Rinker has made continuous deductions from his prison account by initiating wire transfers to an Indiana Department of Correction employee’s personal bank account. The transactions referenced by the Plaintiff are consistent with transactions already challenged in his third amended complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff has alleged as a result of a disciplinary charge, the Superintendent approved Plaintiff having to pay restitution for a correctional officer’s glasses. There is no reason to add a defendant who merely allegedly carried out the directions of the Superintendent. Indeed, the underlying claim, as discussed in the ruling denying the Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, has already been asserted against defendants who were personally responsible for making the decisions at issue, and “[t]o the extent Mr. Meineke’s claims are barred by Heck and have not been invalidated, there is no likelihood of success on this claim.” (Entry Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction, docket #55, April 22, 2013). If it is clear that an amendment would be futile, leave to amend should be denied. Bogie v. Rosenberg, 705 F.3d 603, 608 (7th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the motion for leave to amend a fourth time (Dkt No. 57) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 05/01/2013 Date: __________________ Distribution: Anthony R. Meineke 147748 Pendleton Correctional Facility Inmate Mail/Parcels 4490 West Reformatory Road Pendleton, IN 46064 Electronically Registered Counsel ________________________ Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

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?