Parson v. Terrell et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying 8 Motion to Amend; denying 9 Motion for issuance of subpoena. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 4/29/13. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(bsw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:13-cv-48-RJC
ROBERT J. PARSON, III,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DWAYNE TERRERLL,
)
Superintendent, Marion
)
Corr. Inst.; L. HAYWORD,
)
Nurse, Marion Corr. Inst.;
)
FNU CARSWELL, Mental
)
Health, Marion Corr. Inst.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint and
his motion for the issuance of subpoena.1
On March 25, 2013, the Court entered an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint which
was filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 6).2 In his motion to amend, Plaintiff provides
citations to case law which he contends support a finding that he has stated a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
A district court is not permitted to deny a Rule 15 motion to amend “simply because it
has entered judgment against the plaintiff—be it a judgment of dismissal, summary judgment, or
a judgment after a trial on the merits.” Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 427 (4th Cir. 2006) (en

1

The Court accepted the allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint as true and the information requested by Plaintiff
through subpoena largely mirrors his allegations. The Court finds that the motion for subpoena should therefore be
denied as moot.
2

The findings and conclusions of law are fully incorporated herein.

1

banc). Rule 15(a)(2) provides that leave to amend a complaint should be freely granted when
justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A motion to amend filed following entry of
judgment is “evaluated under the same legal standard as a similar motion filed before judgment
was entered—for prejudice, bad faith, or futility.” Laber, supra.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion to amend should be denied because it is futile in
the Court’s estimation as Plaintiff’s legal citations do not alter the Court’s conclusion that
Plaintiff’s complaint has failed to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend his Complaint is DENIED as futile. (Doc. No. 8).

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Subpoena is DENIED as moot. (Doc. No. 9).
Signed: April 29, 2013

2