Tucker v. Karol

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF # 20) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 8/11/2015. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
NORMAN TUCKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICIA KAROL,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:15CV17 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint. In
his motion and brief in support, plaintiff states that he is seeking leave to amend his
complaint and to file a supplemental complaint. Plaintiff cites to Rule 15 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and alleges that the amended and supplemental complaint will
relate to allegations in the original complaint and the same factors.
Rule 15 states that A[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so
requires.@ The Supreme Court has enunciated the following general standard, which is to
be employed under Rule 15(a) by the district courts:
If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a
proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his
claim on the merits. In the absence of any apparent or declared
reasonCsuch as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the
movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of
the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. C the leave sought should, as
the rules require, be Afreely given.@

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). E.g., Coleman v. Ramada Hotel Operating
Co., 933 F.2d 470, 473 (7th Cir. 1991) (AAlthough the federal rules generally favor a
liberal amendment policy, justice does not demand that [a party] be given leave to append
frivolous or repetitive allegations to [his or] her complaint at any stage in the
proceedings.@). Additionally, as plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this section
1983 action, this Court is required to review any amended pleading under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e) and dismiss it or any portion of it that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim on which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff has not submitted a proposed amended or supplemental complaint.
Plaintiff does not provide any information as to the new allegations that he would include
in his amended and/or supplemental complaint. Without this information, the Court must
deny plaintiff’s motion to amend. Further, the Court notes that plaintiff’s motion was
filed after the July 1, 2015 deadline in the case management order for the filing of all
motions for amendment of pleadings.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF # 20) is
DENIED.
Dated this 11th day of August, 2015.

___________________________________
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2