Nalls v. Napolean

Filing 83

ORDER DENYING 79 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
KENYATTA NALLS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No.: 11-12670
Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

BENNY N. NAPOLEAN, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT [R. 79]
More than four years after filing his original complaint, Plaintiff
Kenyatta Nalls has filed a motion to amend his complaint, requesting to
revert back to the original complaint after a prior amendment was stricken
and seeking to add a retaliation claim against Defendant Tango Cheatham
within the next sixty days. [R. 79, PgID 605-06]. Defendants object to the
motion. [R. 80].
The Court will deny Nalls’s motion to amend. First, his 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.” Nalls’s failure to reproduce the entire pleading as amended

runs afoul of this rule; his request to add a retaliation claim at a later date is
insufficient. Additionally, since Nalls has not articulated the amendments to
the retaliation claim against Cheatham that he seeks, the Court cannot
evaluate whether or not they would be futile. A court should deny a motion
to amend “if the amendment is brought in bad faith, for dilatory purposes,
results in undue delay or prejudice to the opposing party or would be futile.”
Crawford v. Roane, 53 F.3d 750, 753 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
Furthermore, Nalls’s request to amend his complaint to enhance his
retaliation claims against Cheatham comes far too late. As noted by
Defendants, Nalls already asserted retaliation claims against Cheatham in
his original complaint, and they reveal that his interaction with Cheatham
took place in April 2010. [R. 1, PgID 10-11, ¶¶ 68-73]. Nalls has had
ample time to fully articulate his retaliation claims against Cheatham, but he
waited over four years after filing that original complaint, on the eve of the
conclusion of discovery (July 8, 2015), to seek the instant amendment.
The Court agrees with Defendants that Nalls is likely seeking to amend his
complaint in response to their now-withdrawn motion for summary
judgment, which asserted that Nalls was consistently provided with
medication during the time period in which he alleged that Cheatham was

retaliating by denying him medication. [R. 56, PgID 608-09].1 Under these
circumstances, granting Nalls motion to amend would result in undue delay
and prejudice Defendants. Baker v. Holder, No. 06-CV-91-HRW, 2010 WL
1334924, at *7 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2010) (denying motion to amend
complaint in four-year-old case after motion for summary judgment was
filed because granting amendment would prejudice defendants) (collecting
cases).
Furthermore, no order is needed for Nalls to revert back to his original
complaint because the Court indicated in its order granting Defendants’
motion to strike that, “going forward, this Court will consider only the
allegations contained in Nalls’s original complaint as if they were those of
his amended complaint, as applicable to the parties identified in the
amended complaint.” [R. 75, PgID 580].
For these reasons, the Court DENIES the motion to amend. [R. 79].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 5, 2015
Detroit, Michigan

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

Defendants withdrew the motion only because the Court allowed further
discovery given the prior absence of a scheduling order cutting off
discovery. [R. 70; R. 73]
1

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 August 5, 2015.
s/Marlena Williams
MARLENA WILLIAMS
Case Manager