Banks v. DeSoto Indep. School District et al

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 39 MOTION TO STRIKE AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L Horan on 11/19/2015) (aaa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SHANTERA BANKS,
Plaintiff,
V.
DESOTO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT, ET AL.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. 3:14-cv-2729-N-BN

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE
AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
United States District Judge David C. Godbey has referred this case to the
undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial management pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and an order of reference [Dkt. No. 26].
After conducting a scheduling conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 16(b) on September 9, 2015, the Court entered an initial scheduling order
setting, in pertinent part, October 30, 2015 as the deadline for the parties to move for
leave to amend pleadings. See Dkt. No. 33, ¶ 2 (“The Court generally will grant a
timely-filed motion to amend as a matter of course absent a showing of undue prejudice
or futility. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). No amendments will be allowed after this deadline
except on a showing of good cause. See FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4).”).
On that date, the Court docketed an amended pleading submitted by Plaintiff
Shantera Banks, who is currently proceeding pro se. Dkt. No. 38. The amended
pleading consists of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint [Dkt. No. 11] plus an
-1-

“amendment” [Dkt. No. 38-1] containing two additional paragraphs. Plaintiff failed to
file an actual motion for leave to amend. And her failure to do so prompted Defendants’
motion to strike [Dkt. No. 39], which is now before the Court.
For the reasons explained below, the Court DENIES the motion to strike,
GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint, and DIRECTS the Clerk
of Court to docket the pleading filed at Dkt. No. 38 as Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint.
Legal Standards and Analysis
“[T]he grant of leave to amend the pleadings pursuant to [Federal Rule of Civil
Procure 15(a)] is within the discretion of the trial court.” Zenith Radio Corp. v.
Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330 (1971). And Rule 15(a)(2) requires that
leave to amend be granted freely “when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2).
But granting leave to amend “is by no means automatic.” Wimm v. Jack Eckerd Corp.,
3 F.3d 137, 139 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting Addington v. Farmer’s Elevator Mut. Ins. Co.,
650 F.2d 663, 666 (5th Cir. Unit A July 1981)).
In deciding whether to grant leave to amend, the court may consider factors such
as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated
failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the
opposing party, and futility of amendment.” Id. (citing cases). And “a district court may
refuse leave to amend if the filing of the amended complaint would be futile, i.e., if the
complaint as amended would be subject to dismissal.” Varela v. Gonzales, 773 F.3d
704, 707 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Ackerson v. Bean Dredging, LLC, 589 F.3d 196, 208
-2-

(5th Cir. 2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). But this Court’s
almost unvarying practice when futility is raised is to address the merits
of the claim or defense in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56 motion.
The court only infrequently considers the merits of new causes of action
in the context of Rule 15(a). The court prefers instead to do so in the
context of a Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56 motion, where the procedural
safeguards are surer.
Reneker v. Offill, No. 3:08-cv-1394-D, 2011 WL 1427661, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Apr.13, 2011);
see also Lefall v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 28 F.3d 521, 524 (5th Cir. 1994)
(“recogniz[ing]” that, in addition to futility, untimeliness is a “valid reason” that is
substantial enough to deny leave to amend (citing Avatar Exploration, Inc. v. Chevron,
U.S.A., Inc., 933 F.2d 314, 320-21 (5th Cir. 1991))).
Defendants move to strike the amended pleading solely because Plaintiff failed
to request leave through a separate motion, as the Court’s Initial Scheduling Order and
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (as well as the Court’s Local Civil Rules) require.
See Dkt. No. 39 at 2. But courts generally have a “duty to construe pro se [filings]
liberally so that a litigant will not suffer simply because he did not attend law school
or find a suitable attorney.” United States v. Ayika, 554 F. App’x 302, 308 (5th Cir.
2014) (per curiam); see also Marshall v. Eadison, 704CV123HL, 2005 WL 3132352, at
*2 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 22, 2005) (“pro se pleadings must be liberally construed to prevent
the loss of rights due to inartful expression” (citing Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9
(1980))). And, as at least one court has observed, a pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply
with the technical requirements of rules regarding leave to amend “are not fatal to
plaintiff’s request for leave to amend, especially in light of plaintiff’s status as a
-3-

self-represented litigant,” and particularly if a “defendant does not contend that it
would be prejudiced by plaintiff’s noncompliance.” Price v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., Civ. A.
No. ELH-13-02535, 2014 WL 1764722, at *13-*14 (D. Md. Apr. 30, 2014) (citation
omitted).
Here, Defendants do not allege that they have been prejudiced by Plaintiff’s
failure to file an actual motion for leave. Therefore, their motion to strike is denied.
And the Court finds, moreover, (1) that leave to amend should not be denied on the
ground asserted by Defendants, (2) that Plaintiff’s amended pleading [Dkt. No. 38]
should be liberally construed as requesting leave pursuant to Rule 15, and (3) that
leave to amend should be granted.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES the motion to strike [Dkt. No. 39], GRANTS Plaintiff leave
to file a second amended complaint, and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to docket the
pleading filed at Dkt. No. 38 as Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint deemed filed as
of November 19, 2015.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 19, 2015

_________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-4-