Grace v. Wallace et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 12 MOTION for Reconsideration re 9 Memorandum & Order,, 10 Order of Partial Dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.1915(e)(2)(B), filed by Plaintiff William Grace, 14 MOTION for Reconsideration re 10 Order of Part ial Dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.1915(e)(2)(B), filed by Plaintiff William Grace, 7 MOTION to Amend/Correct 6 Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff William Grace, 13 PRO SE MOTION filed by Plaintiff William Grace. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to amend [ECF No. 7] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motions for reconsideration [ECF Nos. 12, 13, 14] are DENIED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 8/9/16. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
WILLIAM GRACE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
IAN WALLACE, et al.,
Defendants,

No. 1:16-CV-70 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to amend and motions for
reconsideration. The motions are denied.
Plaintiff moves to amend his complaint to add a claim against defendant James Hurley.
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.”). Plaintiff did not submit an amended complaint with his motion. So, the motion is
denied.
Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider the dismissal of the supervisory defendants
because they were not personally involved in the alleged deprivations of his civil rights. Plaintiff
argues that they were personally responsible because they are supervisors and denied his
grievances. Plaintiff is incorrect. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“Because
vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each
Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the

Constitution.”); Camberos v. Branstad, 73 F.3d 174, 176 (8th Cir. 1995) (“a general
responsibility for supervising the operations of a prison is insufficient to establish the personal
involvement required to support liability.”); George v. Smith, 507 F. 3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007)
(“Only persons who cause or participate in the [constitutional] violations are responsible. Ruling
against a prisoner on an administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the violation.”).
As a result, the motions are denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to amend [ECF No. 7] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration [ECF Nos. 12,
13, 14] are DENIED.
Dated this 9th day of August, 2016.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2