Summary
The court struck Plaintiff David Wayne Wilson’s lodged second amended complaint because he neither obtained Defendants’ consent nor sought leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The court also denied Defendants’ request for screening as moot, finding that the proposed amendments were procedurally defective, unnecessary in part, and futile in other respects. The action therefore continues on the operative first amended complaint.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff could file a second amended complaint without defendants' written consent or a motion seeking leave of court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).
- Whether Plaintiff's lodged pleading could be treated as a supplemental pleading under Rule 15(d).
- Whether further leave to amend would be futile because the proposed pleading repeated improper official-capacity claims and failed to state a cognizable claim based on the outcome of a prison grievance.
- Whether the lodged second amended complaint should be struck and defendants' request for screening denied as moot.
Holdings
- Because Defendants had answered the first amended complaint and more than 21 days had elapsed, Plaintiff could amend only with Defendants' written consent or the court's leave. His failure to obtain consent or file a motion for leave rendered the lodged second amended complaint procedurally defective under Rule 15(a).
- The lodged pleading could not be treated as a supplemental pleading because Plaintiff filed no motion seeking leave to supplement and the pleading was expressly titled a second amended complaint rather than a supplemental pleading.
- Further leave to amend would be futile because the proposed pleading repeated improper official-capacity claims and failed to state a cognizable claim based solely on the outcome of a prison grievance.
Key quotations
“Hence, Plaintiff’s submission is procedurally defective because it does not comply with Rule 15(a).” (Discussion II.A)
“Prisoners do not have ‘a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.’” (Discussion II.B)
Factual background
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought a § 1983 action concerning alleged inadequate medical care, retaliation, and equal-protection violations involving prison officials. After the court screened his original and first amended complaints, the action proceeded on specified claims against Correa, Carlson, and Merritt. Plaintiff lodged a second amended complaint before the scheduling-order amendment deadline, but he did not obtain defendants' consent or seek leave of court. The proposed pleading repeated previously identified deficiencies, including official-capacity claims and allegations based on the handling of a grievance.
Procedural history
The action proceeded on constitutional claims in Plaintiff's first amended complaint after prior screening and dismissal of other claims and defendants. The court's scheduling order set February 5, 2025, as the deadline to amend pleadings. Plaintiff lodged a second amended complaint on February 3, 2025, without filing a motion for leave to amend or obtaining defendants' written consent. The court struck the lodged complaint, denied defendants' screening request as moot, and directed that the action continue on the operative first amended complaint.