Morris v. Detroit, City of

Filing 18

Memorandum and Order Denying Plaintiff's 17 Motion to Supplement Complaint. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (Sandusky, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAVARON MORRIS, on behalf
of himself and a class of
others similarly situated,
Case No. 14-12791
HON. AVERN COHN
Plaintiffs,
v.

CITY OF DETROIT,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT (Doc. 17)
I.
This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Lavaron
Morris is a Michigan prisoner confined at the Muskegon Correctional Facility. In his pro
se complaint, he challenged the Detroit Police Department’s “inhumane and unlawful
system for detaining persons under the Department’s control” incommunicado and
subjecting them to “torturous mistreatment in order to accomplish unjust ends,” “on
behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated.” On October 22, 2014, the
Court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because it did not
contain sufficient facts to support a plausible claim for relief. (Doc. 10).
Before the Court is Morris’ motion to supplement the complaint. (Doc. 17). As
will be explained, this is the third of such motions Morris has filed since the case was

closed. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
II.
After the Court dismissed the complaint, Morris filed two motions under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(d), filed December 29, 2104 and January 23, 2015 respectively. (Docs. 13
and 14). In the motions, Morris sought to amend and/or supplement the complaint with
additional factual allegations.1
The Court denied both motions, explaining:
Morris’ motions are an attempt to cure the deficiencies in the original
complaint. The Sixth Circuit, however, has held that, in prisoner cases where the
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, as was Morris, “[t]he district court must
dismiss a complaint without first affording a plaintiff leave to amend.” Bright v.
Thompson, No. 11–5732, 2012 WL 833662, at *1 (6th Cir. March 13, 2012)
(citing Benson v. O'Brian, 179 F.3d 1014, 1015–16 (6th Cir.1999)). See also
Cantley v. Armstrong, No. 09–1092, 2010 WL 3245548, at * 1 (6th Cir.2010) (
“district courts are not to permit plaintiffs to amend a complaint to avoid
dismissal”); Shorter v. Campbell, 59 F. App'x 673, 675 (6th Cir.2003) (“As the
plaintiffs' complaint was dismissible under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, they
did not have the right to amend their complaint prior to dismissal.”); McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612 (6th Cir.1997); Ashley v. Wilson, No.
10–10512, 2010 WL 1246525, at *1 (E.D. Mich. March 25, 2010) (“The Court
does not have discretion to allow prisoners filing suit in forma pauperis to amend
their complaint to avoid sua sponte dismissal....”); Corrion v. Ludwick, No.
09–11531, 2009 WL 3273737, at *1 (E.D.Mich. Oct.13, 2009) (“prisoners may not
alter or amend their complaints to avoid a summary dismissal”); McGore v. Lutz,
No. 09–13031, 2009 WL 2959874, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 11, 2009).
(Doc. 16).
The same is true of Morris third motion to supplement the complaint. Morris
cannot amend his complaint to avoid or alter the dismissal. As previously explained in
the order dismissing the complaint and order denying his motions to supplement, should
Morris wish to pursue his claims, he must file a new complaint which contains detailed

1

The motions also named additional defendants beyond the City of Detroit.
2

statements as to his specific circumstances and the basis for his claims. The new
complaint must be given a new case number. Morris cannot file a new complaint
using the case number in this case.
SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 25, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of
record on this date, February 25, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/ Karri Sandusky for Sakne Chami
Case Manager, [phone]

3