Jason Coleman v. Wes Golden et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee addresses several motions in Jason Coleman’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The court administratively terminated the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion as untimely because it was filed after their answer, granted Coleman leave to amend to substitute Latisha M. Johnson as a defendant, and ordered him to refile a signed amended complaint. The court denied Coleman’s motions to extend the service deadline and stay the proceedings as premature or moot.

Holdings

1. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion filed after the moving defendants have served an answer is untimely; the court administratively terminated the motion.
2. Leave to amend was granted because Coleman had filed a proposed amended complaint, defendants identified no undue prejudice, and no other apparent reason supported denial of leave.
3. The court declined to resolve defendants’ futility arguments at the amendment stage and allowed those arguments to be presented in a dispositive motion directed at the amended complaint.
4. Coleman was required to refile a signed amended complaint because the proposed amended complaint’s typed name did not satisfy Rule 11(a) and the applicable local rule.
5. Coleman’s request for an extension of time to serve Latisha M. Johnson was premature, and his request to stay the proceedings pending service was denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion was timely when filed after they had answered the original complaint.
2. Whether Coleman should be granted leave under Rule 15(a)(2) to amend his complaint to substitute Latisha M. Johnson for Keisha Johnson.
3. Whether Coleman’s unsigned proposed amended complaint complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) and the applicable local rule.
4. Whether Coleman was entitled to an extension of time to serve Latisha M. Johnson and a stay of proceedings pending service.

Disposition

other