Benjamin v. Does et al

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph. IT IS ORDERED that Benjamin's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (ECF No. 31 ) is DENIED. The Clerk shall update the caption of this case to reflect Benjamin's demand of $1 million in damages. (cc: all counsel, via US Mail to Plaintiff) (ds)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
LESHAUN BENJAMIN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-CV-570

ALICIA SANCHEZ,
Defendant.

ORDER

Before me is plaintiff Leshaun Benjamin’s second motion to amend his
complaint. (ECF No. 31.) He states that he has “determined” that his complaint and
his request for relief were “lacking detail.” (Id.) The defendant has not responded to
Benjamin’s motion.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, “[a] party may amend its pleading
once as a matter of course within” twenty-one days of service or within twenty-one
days after service of a responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Although
Benjamin filed his motion to amend within twenty-one days of the defendant’s
answer, he has already been permitted to amend his complaint once. He therefore
may amend a second time “only with the opposing party’s written consent or the
court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Rule instructs courts to “freely give leave
when justice so requires.” Id. Nonetheless, district courts retain discretion whether
to allow amendment and may deny the request because 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, futility of amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
178, 182 (1962).
Benjamin’s proposed second amended complaint does not appear to be filed in
bad faith, and he does not seek to add new parties or allegations that would prejudice
the defendant. In fact, the allegations in his proposed second amended complaint are
nearly identical to his amended complaint. The only observable difference is that the
proposed second amended complaint is much more difficult to read. Benjamin also
expanded his request for relief and states that he seeks $1 million in damages for the
relevant incident and for “the ‘unlawful arrest that I suffered.’” (ECF No. 31-1.) But
Chief Judge Pepper, to whom this case is assigned, did not allow Benjamin to proceed
on a claim related to his arrest. (ECF No. 11.) Benjamin does not allege that Nurse
Sanchez, the only defendant against whom he is proceeding, had any part in the
alleged unlawful arrest.
Because Benjamin’s proposed second amended complaint does not appear to
add any detail to his claim against the defendant, and he seeks to address unrelated
events about which he has not been permitted to proceed, I will deny his motion to
further amend his complaint. But I will direct the Clerk’s office to update the caption

2

of this case to reflect his request for $1 million in damages. The amended complaint
(ECF No. 18) remains the operative complaint in this matter.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Benjamin’s motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint (ECF No. 31) is DENIED. The Clerk shall update the
caption of this case to reflect Benjamin’s demand of $1 million in damages.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 23rd day of September, 2020.
BY THE COURT:

NANCY JOSEPH
YJ
PH
JOSEPH
United States Magist
istrate
Magistrate Judge

3