Johnson v. Ramsey County ADC
ORDER denying 50 Motion to Alter/Amend/Supplement Pleadings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson on 9/19/2022. (JRS)
CASE 0:22-cv-00494-ECT-BRT Doc. 55 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Eugene Laron Johnson,
Civ. No. 22-494 (ECT/BRT)
Ramsey County ADC; Officer 2369; and
Sgt. Sean Delrosario,
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff Eugene Laron Johnson’s motion to
amend. (Doc. No. 50.) As background, on August 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed an “Amended
Complaint” without filing a motion to amend. (Doc. No. 48.) On August 8, 2022, citing
the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order, the Court entered an order striking Plaintiff’s
“Amended Complaint” because a motion, seeking leave to amend, was required. (Doc.
No. 49.) Except where amendment is permitted as a matter of course, under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s
written consent or the court’s leave [and] [t]he court should freely give leave when justice
so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
After this Court issued its August 8, 2022 Order, on August 17, 2022, Plaintiff
filed a motion to amend. (Doc. No. 50.) But Plaintiff did not include a copy of a
proposed amended complaint with his motion or other supportive papers as required
pursuant to District of Minnesota Local Rule 15.1. See D. Minn. LR 15.1(b) (stating that
CASE 0:22-cv-00494-ECT-BRT Doc. 55 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 5
any motion to amend a pleading must be accompanied by a copy of the proposed
amended pleading). This Court construed Plaintiff’s motion liberally as intending to use
the stricken “Amended Complaint” at Docket Number 48 as his proposed amended
complaint. (Doc. No. 51.) The Court’s Order dated August 19, 2022, reflected this
construction and set a briefing schedule. (Id.)
However, before Defendants responded, Plaintiff mailed a letter to the Clerk of
Court, dated August 31, 2022, stating the following:
I write you this letter today after my amended complaint was stricken. I did
not know what stricken meant. Since my amended complaint was
strickened [sic] I do not wish that it be used because I made mistakes that I
would like to correct such as sueing [sic] the defendants in both of their
(Doc. No. 53.) Plaintiff’s letter was received by the Court on September 6, 2022. (Id.) On
September 9, 2022, Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend:
By letter received by the Court on September 6, Plaintiff informed the
Court that “[s]ince my amended complaint was strickened [sic] I do not
wish that it be used because I made a mistakes that I would like to correct
such as sueing [sic] the defendants in both of their capacities.” (Doc. No.
53). Because Plaintiff withdrew his request to the Court to file a second
amended complaint, the matter is moot. Defendants respectfully submit that
this Court should consider Plaintiff’s motion to amend withdrawn and that
it need not evaluate the motion further, in accordance with Plaintiff’s
request to the Court.
(Doc. No. 54 at 2.) This Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff has now withdrawn
what the Court had liberally construed to be Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint in
connection with his motion. Accordingly, without a proposed amended pleading that the
Defendants can respond to, Plaintiff’s August 17, 2022 motion to amend is incomplete.
CASE 0:22-cv-00494-ECT-BRT Doc. 55 Filed 09/19/22 Page 3 of 5
Thus, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. However, as explained below, the Court denies
Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice.
Further, given what appears to be confusion over “what stricken meant,” the Court
will give Plaintiff one final opportunity to file a new motion to amend no later than
October 7, 2022, that includes a new proposed amended complaint.1 Plaintiff’s proposed
amended complaint must be complete.2 See D. Minn. LR 15.1(a) (“Unless the court
orders otherwise, any amended pleading must be complete in itself and must not
incorporate by reference any prior pleading.”). If Plaintiff’s motion to amend is filed, and
the Defendants do not consent to the filing of an amended complaint, the Court will, in its
discretion, decide whether to grant Plaintiff leave to amend. See Niagara of Wis. Paper
Corp. v. Paper Indus. Union-Mgmt. Pension Fund, 800 F.2d 742, 749 (8th Cir. 1986)
(“The decision as to whether to grant leave to amend is entrusted to the sound discretion
Plaintiff filed his August 31, 2022, letter before the September 12, 2022, deadline
for filing motions to amend the pleadings that was set forth in the Pretrial Scheduling
Order. For good cause, the Court will extend the Pretrial Scheduling Order’s deadline for
Plaintiff’s motion to amend to October 7, 2022. Plaintiff, who is pro se, has shown
diligence in attempting to meet the pretrial scheduling order by filing his August 31, 2022
letter ahead of the September 12, 2022 pleading deadline See Sherman v. Winco
Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 716 (8th Cir. 2008) (“The primary measure of good cause
is the movant’s diligence in attempting to meet the order’s requirements.”) (quotations
and citation omitted).
Plaintiff states in his August 31, 2022 letter that he would like to correct certain
aspects of his earlier proposed amended complaint, such as adding allegations against
Defendants in their official capacities as well as their individual capacities. (See Doc.
No. 48 at 3.) Any corrections Plaintiff wishes to make must be timely included in any
new proposed amended complaint.
CASE 0:22-cv-00494-ECT-BRT Doc. 55 Filed 09/19/22 Page 4 of 5
of the district court.”). If Plaintiff seeks to amend his current Complaint3 in this action,
Plaintiff’s motion must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local
Rules of this Court. As stated above, any amended pleading must be complete in itself
and must not incorporate by reference any prior pleading. See D. Minn. LR 15.1(a).
In sum, Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. No. 50) is denied without prejudice and
Plaintiff has until October 7, 2022, to file another motion along with a proposed
amended complaint, after which Defendants may file their response within 14 days of
receiving Plaintiff’s motion.
Based on files, records, and submissions herein, and for the reasons stated above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. No. 50) is DENIED without prejudice;
The Pretrial Scheduling Order’s September 12, 2022 deadline for filing a
motion to amend the pleadings is extended until October 7, 2022;
Plaintiff may file a motion to amend by October 7, 2022, which must
include a copy of his proposed amended pleading;
Defendants may file their response within 14 days of receiving Plaintiff’s
The Court previously construed Plaintiff’s Complaint as Plaintiff’s “Amended
Complaint” (Doc. No. 10) and the document labeled “Facts” (Doc. No. 11). (See Doc.
No. 12 at n.1.) No other documents are regarded as part of the current operative pleading.
CASE 0:22-cv-00494-ECT-BRT Doc. 55 Filed 09/19/22 Page 5 of 5
If Defendants oppose any motion to amend on the grounds of futility,
Plaintiff may file a reply within 14 days after receiving Defendants’ opposition.
Dated: September 19, 2022
s/ Becky R. Thorson
BECKY R. THORSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?