MEINEKE v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al
ENTRY denying 57 Motion for Leave to Amend a Fourth Time. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/1/2013. Copy Mailed. (JD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ANTHONY R. MEINEKE,
JACK BINION ,
CHARLES A. PENFOLD,
BRUCE LEMMON, and
Case. No. 1:11-cv-01624-TWP-DKL
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.
Anthony R. Meineke
Pendleton Correctional Facility
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?