Brown v. Department of Health and Human Services et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Filing No. 13 ) is denied without prejudice to bringing such claims in a separate action. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF) Modified on 12/20/2016 to correct text (KLF).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CORNELIUS BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES, COURTNEY
PHILIPS, Director, SHANNON
BLACK, Program Director, KYLE
MALONE, SOS Team Leader,
WILLIAM BECKER, Program
Therapist, CINDY DYKEMAN,
Program Manager, and LISA
LAURELL, Program Social Worker,
et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:16CV377

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint—which has now been served upon defendants Becker,
Black, Dykeman, Laurell, Malone, Philips, and the Department of Health and Human
Services—concerns incidents that occurred at the Lincoln Regional Center related to
Plaintiff’s requests to wear clothing consistent with her gender identity.1 (Filing No.
12 (proof of service).)
Now Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Amend Complaint (Filing No. 13) seeking
to add four defendants, factual allegations, and claims related to incidents that
occurred after her transfer from the Lincoln Regional Center to the Norfolk Regional
Center. Because Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint contains new factual
allegations describing incidents that allegedly occurred at another institution during
a different time frame and that involved different defendants, and because service of
1

Plaintiff is a biological male, but identifies as a female.

the operative complaint upon the defendants has already been completed, I shall deny
Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice to bringing such claims in a separate action. See
Leaming v. Helder, No. 5:14-CV-5114, 2015 WL 1456907, at *1 (W.D. Ark. Mar. 30,
2015) (to the extent transferred pro se prisoner’s objections to report and
recommendation could be construed as motion to amend complaint to bring new
claims against new parties after motions for summary judgment had been filed, such
motion was denied, and “[a]ny non-frivolous claims Plaintiff wishes to make against
another person or entity subject to suit may be brought in a separate action.”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Filing No. 13)
is denied without prejudice to bringing such claims in a separate action.
DATED this 20th day of December, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

2