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).

Download PDF
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

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?