Chapman v. Yellow Cab Cooperative et al

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 6/10/2015 DENYING 11 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Thomas Edward Chapman) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
THOMAS EDWARD CHAPMAN,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 15-C-533

YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE,
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS,
OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF STATE,
ALI MOHAMAD, andGIRI PARSHUA,
Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Thomas Edward Chapman (“Chapman”) filed a
motion to amend his complaint to add Dennis Edwards (“Edwards”), owner
of taxicab #123, as a Defendant in this action. (ECF No. 11.) Chapman
relies upon Defendant Yellow Cab Cooperative’s (“Yellow Cab”) purported
statement to the State of Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development
that Edwards and Defendant Giri Parshua, rather than Yellow Cab, made
the decision to terminate Chapman’s employment.
Chapman is advised that Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure affords him the opportunity to amend his Complaint once as a
matter of course within 21 days of serving it or, if the pleading is one to
which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a
responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b),

(e), or (f), whichever is earlier. As such, if Chapman satisfies the foregoing
requirements of Rule 15(a), he need not file a motion.
However, Chapman’s motion cannot be deemed to have amended his
Complaint, because it does not include the allegations of the original
Complaint or the exhibits that he attached to that pleading. Chapman is
advised that the amended complaint supersedes the prior complaint and
must be complete in itself. See Duda v. Bd. of Educ. of Franklin Park Pub.
Sch. Dist. No. 84, 133 F.3d 1054, 1056-57 (7th Cir. 1998); See also Flannery
v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n.1 (7th Cir. 2004). In
such instances, the “prior pleading is in effect withdrawn as to all matters
not restated in the amended pleading[.]” Duda, 133 F.3d at 1057 (citation
omitted). To amend his Complaint, Chapman must file an amended
Complaint that includes all the original allegations that he intends to
pursue in this action, exhibits that he wants to attach, and the added
allegations against Edwards.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Chapman’s motion to amend his complaint (ECF No. 11) is
DENIED.

-2-

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 10th day of June, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

-3-