Jones v. Google LLC, Inc.

Filing 33

ORDER ENTERED: The amended complaint, treated as a motion to amend the complaint, is denied and the production of discovery is ordered stricken. Signed by U.S. District Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 4/16/2020. Mailed to pro se party Joseph Lee Jones by regular mail. (jal)

Case 5:18-cv-04032-SAC-GEB Document 33 Filed 04/16/20 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JOSEPH LEE JONES,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 18-4032-SAC-GEB

GOOGLE LLC, INC.,
Defendant.

O R D E R
This case is before the court upon what plaintiff has titled
an “amended complaint” (Doc. No. 30) and “production of documents
for discovery” (Doc. No. 31).
mid-2018.

This case has been closed since

Plaintiff may not file an amended complaint as of

course. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1).

Nor may plaintiff amend the

complaint in a closed case without first reopening the case.

See

Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2nd Cir. 2008);
Weiss v. Cooley, 230 F.3d 1027, 2014 (7th Cir. 2000).
If the court treated the “amended complaint” as a motion to
amend and if such a motion could be considered in a closed case,
the court would still deny the motion for the following reasons.
First, the proposed complaint, which is difficult to decipher,
fails to state a plausible claim for relief and is therefore
futile.

The court has previously explained (see Doc. No. 20) that

plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the Kansas Consumer

1

Case 5:18-cv-04032-SAC-GEB Document 33 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 2

Protection Act.

The amended complaint seeks to add constitutional

claims, but does not include allegations showing that defendants
acted

under

any

state

governmental

authority

which

necessary to raise a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

would

be

See West v.

If the court treated the “amended

complaint” as a motion for relief from judgment, the court would
deny the motion because plaintiff has not persuasively presented
grounds for such extraordinary relief.

See Allender v. Raytheon

Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1242 (10th Cir. 2006)(discussing
standards for Rule 60(b)(6) relief from judgment).
The court shall strike the material titled “production of
documents for discovery” (Doc. No. 31).
be improperly filed with the court.

This material appears to

See D.Kan.R. 26.3(a).

If the

court considered the materials as some kind of support for the
proposed amended complaint, the court would still find that the
complaint fails to state a claim and is improperly presented to
court in a closed case.
In conclusion, the amended complaint, treated as a motion to
amend the complaint, is denied and the production of discovery is
ordered stricken.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 16th day of April 2020, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/Sam A. Crow_____________
U.S. District Senior Judge

2