Edmonson v Green et al

Filing 40

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 7/15/13 denying 34 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JASON L. EDMONSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 12-CV-00972

OFFICER GREEN and OFFICER VANG,
Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend the complaint along with a proposed amended
complaint (Docket #34). A district court should freely give leave to amend a complaint
whenever justice requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); Indep. Trust Corp. v. Stewart Info.
Servs. Corp., 665 F.3d 930, 943 (7th Cir. 2012); Johnson v. Cypress Hill, 641 F.3d 867,
871–72 (7th Cir. 2011). “[W]hile a court may deny a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint, such denials are disfavored.” Bausch v. Stryker Corp., 630 F.3d 546, 562 (7th
Cir. 2010). A district court may deny leave to file an amended complaint in the case of
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 by
virtue of allowance of the amendment, or where the amendment would be futile. Hukic v.
Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009); Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788,
796 (7th Cir. 2008).
Several of plaintiff’s proposed changes to the complaint are minor and unnecessary
grammatical edits that do not change the nature of plaintiff’s claim. For example, plaintiff
seeks to correct a sentence by adding the word “not,” as set forth in paragraph 5 of the

proposed amended complaint. He also seeks to add the words “search,” “hand-cuffing,”
and “prior” to his legal theory, as set forth in paragraph 4 of the Legal Theory section of the
proposed amended pleading. Additionally, plaintiff seeks to add claims against two new
defendants, City of Appleton Police Chief Richard Meyers and Appleton Police Supervisor
Todd Freeman, set forth paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Legal Theory section of the proposed
amended complaint. However, Captain Meyers and Supervisor Freeman are only
mentioned in a conclusory fashion. Plaintiff does not include any substantive allegations
against them which demonstrate their personal involvement in his claim. See Burks v.
Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir. 2009). He also do not state a policy claim against
either individual. See Calhoun v. Ramsey, 408 F.3d 375, 379 (7th Cir. 2005); Monell v.
Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Finally, Captain
Meyers and Supervisor Freeman are not named in the caption of the proposed amended
complaint.
A district court should deny a motion for leave to amend if the proposed amendment
is futile, as when, for example, the amended pleading would not survive a motion to
dismiss. See, e.g., Arlin–Golf, LLC v. Village of Arlington Heights, 631 F.3d 818, 823 (7th
Cir. 2011); London v. RBS Citizens, N.A., 600 F.3d 742, 747 n. 5 (7th Cir. 2010).
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint
(Docket #34) is DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 15th day of July 2013.
s/ Lynn Adelman
_______________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge
2