Burns v. Phillips et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint [ECF No. 8] is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 10/14/2014. (JMC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
PAULA PHILLIPS, et. al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff=s motion to amend his complaint. The Court
will deny the motion.
Although the Federal Rules have a liberal policy towards amendments, “[p]ost-dismissal
motions to amend are disfavored,” In re Medtronic, Inc., Sprint Fidelis Leads Products Liability
Litigation, 623 F.3d 1200, 1208 (8th Cir. 2010), and amendments should not be granted when
they would be frivolous or “futile.” See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Coleman v.
Ramada Hotel Operating Co., 933 F.2d 470, 473 (7th Cir. 1991). Further, to obtain leave to file
an amended complaint, “a party must submit the proposed amendment along with its motion.”
Clayton v. White Hall School Dist., 778 F.2d 457, 460 (8th Cir. 1985); see Wolgin v. Simon, 722
F.2d 389, 395 (8th Cir. 1983) (“Absent some indication as to what might be added to the
complaint to make it viable, the [moving party] is not entitled to leave to amend.”).
Here, plaintiff failed to submit a proposed amendment with his motion.
complaint was premised on his assertion that defendants violated his procedural due process
rights by taking away his conditional release date as a result of his conduct violation in allegedly
damaging a window.
Given that prisoners do not have an established liberty interest in
conditional release, Dace v. Mickelson, 816 F.2d 1277, 1280–81 (8th Cir. 1987), it appears that
an amendment would be frivolous or futile.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint [ECF No. 8]
is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 14th day of October, 2014.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?