Easton Lloyd Mercy v. Weston Bettelyoun

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota denied Easton Lloyd Mercy’s motion to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint because it did not comply with the court’s local rule governing amended pleadings. The court granted Mercy until March 12, 2026, to file a compliant motion and proposed amended complaint, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal without prejudice.

Holdings

1. The motion to amend was properly denied because it did not comply with D.S.D. Civ. LR 15.1, which required Mercy to submit a proposed amended complaint.
2. If Mercy seeks to amend, he must file a motion to amend with a proposed amended complaint containing every claim he wishes to bring against every defendant and complying with D.S.D. Civ. LR 15.1.
3. If Mercy does not file a compliant motion to amend and proposed amended complaint by March 12, 2026, the action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Mercy's motion to amend complied with D.S.D. Civ. LR 15.1.
2. Whether the court should deny the motion to amend while allowing Mercy an opportunity to submit a compliant motion and proposed amended complaint.
3. Whether failure to submit a compliant amended complaint by the court-ordered deadline would warrant dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

other