Tennessee State Conference of the NAACP et al v. Lee et al

Filing 79

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: In an Order filed August 21, 2024 (Doc. No. 75 ), this Court granted Defendants joint motion to dismiss the Complaint. More than thirty days have elapsed, and Plaintiffs have not sought leave to file an amended complaint. Th is action is therefore DISMISSED with prejudice in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter final judgment under Rule 58 and close the file. Signed by District Judge Eli J. Richardson, Circuit Judge Eric Murphy, and Circuit Judge Benita Pearson on 9/25/2024. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(vk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
TENNESSEE STATE CONFERENCE OF
THE NAACP, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WILLIAM B. LEE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Case No. 3:23-cv-00832
JUDGE ELI RICHARDSON
JUDGE ERIC E. MURPHY
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON

ORDER
In an Order filed August 21, 2024 (Doc. No. 75, “Order”), this Court granted Defendants’
joint motion to dismiss the Complaint. At the conclusion of the Order, to summarize the basis and
nature of the dismissal, the Court explained:
All told, we deny [Defendants’] motion to dismiss the Complaint on laches
ground[s]. We grant the motion to dismiss Governor Lee on sovereign-immunity
grounds. And we grant the motion to dismiss the Complaint for failing to state
plausible claims of racial gerrymandering and vote dilution. But we grant this last
relief without prejudice. A district court “should freely give leave [to amend] when
justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). We find this standard met here because
the Supreme Court in Alexander clarified the applicable law only after the parties
completed their motion-to-dismiss briefing and only one day before oral argument
on that motion. And [Plaintiffs] may be able to allege facts that plausibly
“disentangle race from politics” now that they know our view of the law after
Alexander. 144 S. Ct. at 1233. We thus should give them a chance to amend since
“a more carefully drafted complaint might state a claim[.]” Walker v. Massey, 2023
WL 28435, at *7 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 3, 2023) (citation omitted); see 5B Charles A.
Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 1357, at 501 (2024). [Plaintiffs] will
have thirty days to seek leave to file an amended complaint curing the pleading
defects that we have identified in the original one. The Court retains jurisdiction in
the meantime.

(Doc. No. 75 at 49). More than thirty days have elapsed, and Plaintiffs have not sought leave to
file an amended complaint. Accordingly, this action is now due for final dismissal in its entirety,1
and such dismissal should be one with prejudice because it is based primarily on Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Miller v. Collins, No. 23-3191, 2023 WL 7303305,
at *4 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2023) (“[D]ismissals pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) are ‘judgment[s] on the
merits’ and are therefore presumed to be with prejudice.” (quoting Pratt v. Ventas, Inc., 365 F.3d
514, 522 (6th Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted)).
This action is therefore DISMISSED with prejudice in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is
directed to enter final judgment under Rule 58 and close the file.

/s/ Eli Richardson
ELI RICHARDSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
/s/ Eric E. Murphy
ERIC E. MURPHY
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
BENITA Y. PEARSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

As noted, Governor Lee in particular is due to be dismissed pursuant to the Order on alternative grounds
as well, but the dismissal of this case in its entirety is based on Rule 12(b)(6).