Lopes v. Riendeau et al

Filing 8

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered denying without prejudice 7 Motion to Amend. (PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
DANA E. LOPES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
GERALDINE RIENDEAU, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION No.
14-10679-NMG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
GORTON, J.
For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion to amend is
denied without prejudice.
A.

Background

On February 24, 2014, Plaintiff Dana E. Lopes, an inmate
confined to the Old Colony Correctional Center, filed a five-page
civil rights complaint against eight prison and medical personnel
defendants.

See Docket No. 1.

On March 31, 2014, Lopes was

granted in forma pauperis status and summonses were issued for
service by the U.S. Marshal.

See Docket.

Now before the Court is Lopes’ Motion to Amend seeking to
add a new defendant to this action.

See Docket No. 7.

As to why

Lopes seeks to add this new defendant, the motion simply states
that “Doctor Carson was lately assigned as primary care giver to
your plaintiff and she must be added as the attached amendment
delineates.”

Id.

Accompanying the motion is a one-page document

titled “amended complaint,” which is simply a copy of the first
page of the original complaint revised to include Doctor Carson

as a defendant.

Id.

B. Standard of Review
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs
amendment of complaints.

Under the liberal amendment policy

underlying Rule 15, leave to amend “is freely given when justice
so requires absent an adequate basis to deny amendment such as
futility, bad faith, undue delay or a dilatory motive.”
Transwitch Corp. v. Galazar Networks, Inc., 377 F.Supp.2d 284,
290 (D. Mass. 2005) (quotations and citation omitted).

Amendment

would be futile when the complaint as amended still would not
survive a motion to dismiss. See Adorno v. Crowley Towing and
Transp. Co., 443 F.3d 122, 126 (1st Cir. 2006) (leave to amend
should be granted “unless the amendment would be futile”).
To the extent the motion seeks to raise claims arising out
of events occurring after the commencement of this action, it is
more in the nature of a motion to supplement the complaint filed
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d)1 than an amendment to the

1

Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states
that “On motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just
terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting
out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the
date of the pleading to be supplemented. The court may permit
supplementation even though the original pleading is defective in
stating a claim or defense. The court may order that the opposing
party plead to the supplemental pleading within a specified
time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d).
2

complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).2
C.

Discussion

Here, Lopes states that his motion to add a new defendant
should be granted because he has not yet served the original
complaint.

However, the motion and proposed amendment fail to

allege any facts concerning the proposed new defendant.

Lopes

simply states that the proposed defendant was recently assigned
as plaintiff’s “primary care giver.”

Such proposed amendment

does not conform with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and fails to state a claim.
A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1)
a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's
jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the
claim needs no new jurisdictional support; (2) a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include
relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
Civ. P. 8(a).
direct.”

Fed. R.

“Each allegation must be simple, concise, and

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).

The proposed amended

complaint fails to comport with the pleading requirements of Rule
8.

2

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure provides
that “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course
within ... 21 days after serving it[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(1). Thereafter, a party must obtain leave of court. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
3

Moreover, Lopes failed to repeat in the amended complaint
any allegations in the original complaint underlying the claims
in the amended complaint.

An amended complaint completely

supercedes the original complaint. See Ramallo Bros. Printing,
Inc. v. El Dia, Inc., 490 F.3d 86, 88 n.2 (1st Cir. 2007).
Here, the amended complaint fails to provide any factual
allegations concerning the proposed defendant and is subject to
dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.

See 42 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion
(#7) to amend is denied without prejudice.
So ordered.
May 5, 2014
DATE

/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge

4