Van Buren et al v. Crawford, County of et al

Filing 31

ORDER granting 29 Motion to Amend/Correct and Striking Paragraph 23 of the Amended Complaint. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (SGam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
MICHELLE VAN BUREN,
personal representative for the
estate of William Reddie,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 13-14565
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

v.
CRAWFORD COUNTY, CITY OF
GRAYLING, JOHN KLEPADLO,
and ALAN SOMERO,
Defendants.
/
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND/CORRECT AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND STRIKING PARAGRAPH 23 OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
William Reddie’s mother, Michelle Van Buren, filed a complaint against the City of
Grayling, Michigan, Crawford County, and two law enforcement officers after her son was shot
and killed on February 3, 2012. Van Buren later filed an amended complaint which added as
Defendants two DHS employees, both of whom have since been dismissed from the case. See
May 29, 2014 Op. & Order, ECF No. 26.
On June 20, 2014, Van Buren filed a motion to correct her amended complaint. She
indicates that she intended to remove paragraph 23 before filing, “but due to a clerical error and
inadvertent oversight, that change was not made.” Pl.’s Mot. 2, ECF No. 29. The proposed
change is important because Reddie was shot after he allegedly pulled a knife on police officers
that had entered his home to take his son into protective custody. In paragraph 23 of the
amended complaint, Van Buren admits that “[a]t the thought of losing his son, William Reddie,

became visibly upset and he pulled out a closed pocket knife from his pants pocket.” Pl.’s Am.
Compl. ¶ 23, ECF No. 8.
Under the Court’s Local Rules, a response to Van Buren’s motion was due on or before
July 7, 2014. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e)(2)(B) (“A response to a nondispositive motion must be
filed within 14 days after service of the motion.”). As of today’s date, the Defendants have not
responded to Van Buren’s motion, or in any way contested the relief she seeks. Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that a party may amend its pleading with the Court’s leave,
and the Court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Because the Defendants have not indicated why leave should not be granted here—indeed, they
have not even responded to Van Buren’s motion—the Court will allow Van Buren to correct her
amended pleading.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Van Buren’s motion for leave to correct her
complaint, ECF No. 29, is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that paragraph 23 of Van Buren’s amended complaint, ECF No.
8, is deemed STRICKEN. 
Dated: July 22, 2014

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing
order was served upon each attorney or party of record
herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on July
22, 2014.
s/Tracy A. Jacobs
TRACY A. JACOBS

-2-