Robinson v. The Federal Government

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -....IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to docket plaintiff's amended complaint [ECF No. 7] as a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is DENIED. [Doc. 7]. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 6/23/2015. (MRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JERMARSH ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15-CV-829 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a post-dismissal amended complaint. Although plaintiff did not move
for leave to file an amended complaint, the Court will construe the document as a motion for
leave to amend for the purposes of this Order.
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,” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
The allegations in plaintiff’s amended complaint do not state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. They are the same allegations as, or are substantially similar to, his original
claims. As a result, the proposed amendments are futile.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to docket plaintiff’s amended
complaint [ECF No. 7] as a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended
complaint is DENIED. [Doc. 7]

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 23rd day of June, 2015.

2