Peterson v. Burris et al

Filing 39

ORDER DENYING 15 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (MarW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANGEL PETERSON #240544,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No.: 14-13000
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

ROCKY BURRIS, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT [R. 15]
Plaintiff Angel Peterson filed her complaint on July 31, 2014, and a
motion to amend her complaint on November 17, 2014. [R.1; R. 15; R. 16].
Since Defendants had not yet filed a pleading responsive to her initial
complaint, Peterson’s motion to amend would ordinarily be granted as a
matter of course pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B).
However, the Court will deny the motion to amend, for two reasons.
First, Peterson’s purported amended complaint is a partial document.
[R. 16]. Her filing is deficient because Eastern District of Michigan Local
Rule 15.1 states, “Any amendment to a pleading, whether filed as a matter
of course or upon a motion to amend, must, except by leave of court,
reproduce the entire pleading as amended, and may not incorporate any
prior pleading by reference.”

Secondly, and most critically, the only substantive change Peterson
proffered in her motion for filing an amended complaint was to clarify that
she was suing Michigan State Industries (“MSI”) and Millicent Warren in
both their personal and official capacities. [R. 15, PgID 71]. However, the
amended complaint that she filed does not indicate the capacity in which
she is suing MSI, and shows that she is suing Warren only in her official
capacity. [R. 16, PgID 76]. This is no different than her original complaint.
[R. 1, PgID 22].
Since the abbreviated amended complaint does not include any
substantive changes to the Peterson’s initial complaint, the Court DENIES
the motion to amend. [R. 15].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 21, 2015
Detroit, Michigan

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which
provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district
judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF
System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on May 21, 2015.
s/Marlena Williams
MARLENA WILLIAMS
Case Manager