Sargent v. Long et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 15 PRO SE MOTION filed by Plaintiff Vincent E. Sargent, 16 MOTION to Amend/Correct 15 PRO SE MOTION filed by Plaintiff Vincent E. Sargent. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Re-instate Doug Wor sham and Robin Norris in Plaintiff's Claim of Halal Meal Accommodations is DENIED without prejudice. [Doc. 15.] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is GRANTED an additional thirty (30) days, up to and including February 12, 2018, to file a moti on to amend complaint. Plaintiff should include a proposed amended complaint as an attachment to any motion to amend. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for page substitution is GRANTED. [Doc. 16.] (Response to Court due by 2/12/2018.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker on 1/12/18. (CSG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
VINCENT E. SARGENT,
STEVE LONG, et al.,
Case No. 1:17-CV-12 NAB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Re-instate Doug Worsham and
Robin Norris in Plaintiff’s Claim of Halal Meal Accommodations. [Doc. 15.] Defendants did
not respond and the time to do so has now passed. Plaintiff’s motion is timely filed.
The Court should freely give leave to amend a pleading when justice so requires. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Parties do not have an absolute right to amend their pleadings even under this
liberal standard. Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 715 (8th Cir. 2008). “A
district court appropriately denies the movant leave to amend if there are compelling reasons
such as undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the non-moving party, or futility of the
amendment.” Id. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a claim for relief must
contain a short and plain statement that demonstrates grounds for the court’s jurisdiction,
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for the relief sought. The pleading
standard does not require detailed factual allegations, “but it demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c). [Doc. 13.]
“A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action will not do.” Id.
Plaintiff seeks leave to re-file his claims against Doug Worsham and Robin Norris, who
were dismissed by the Court on August 4, 2017. [Doc. 8.] In support of his motion, Plaintiff
provides documents that he contends supports his claims against these defendants for instituting
the “sack lunch” rule. Plaintiff, however, did not attach a proposed amended complaint. The
Court dismissed these defendants, because the allegations against them regarding the sack
lunches were too conclusory to state a claim for relief. Because Plaintiff did not file a proposed
amended complaint, the Court is unable to determine the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s additional
factual allegations against these Defendants. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion
without prejudice and allow Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days to file a motion to amend
complaint with an attached proposed amended complaint.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Re-instate Doug Worsham and
Robin Norris in Plaintiff’s Claim of Halal Meal Accommodations is DENIED without
prejudice. [Doc. 15.]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is GRANTED an additional thirty (30)
days, up to and including February 12, 2018, to file a motion to amend complaint. Plaintiff
should include a proposed amended complaint as an attachment to any motion to amend.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for page substitution is
GRANTED. [Doc. 16.]
Dated this 12th day of January, 2018.
/s/ Nannette A. Baker
NANNETTE A. BAKER
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?