United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Mobile Division.
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
Scott Coogler Judge
January 25, 2018, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted and failure to comply with a Court
order. (Docs. 44 & 45.) The next day, Plaintiff filed a
39-page pleading styled a “Complaint.” (Doc. 46.)
On February 2, 2018, she filed a 13-page pleading styled an
“Opposition” to this Court's Memorandum of
Opinion and Order of Dismissal. (Doc. 47.) For the following
reasons, any relief Plaintiff seeks through these pleadings
is due to be denied.
to entry of judgment, Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and applicable law provide a liberal standard
for permitting amendments to complaints. After judgment is
entered, that standard no longer applies. The plaintiff may
seek leave to file an amended complaint after entry of
adverse judgment only if the plaintiff first satisfies either
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). For the reasons set
out further in this opinion, Plaintiff has not satisfied the
requirements of either of those rules. Because it was filed
after entry of judgment in this case, Plaintiff's
“Complaint” will not be considered by this Court.
assuming that Plaintiff filed her “Complaint”
before receiving a copy of this Court's dismissal order,
it will still not be considered by this Court as a legitimate
pleading. A party may amend her pleading as a matter of
course within 21 days after serving it, or 21 days after
service of a responsive pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(1)(A)-(B). “In all other cases, a party may amend
[her] pleading only with the opposing party's written
consent or the court's leave. The court should freely
give leave when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(2). A district court may deny a motion to amend a
complaint on “numerous grounds, such as undue delay,
undue prejudice to the defendants, and futility of the
amendment.” Maynard v. Bd. of Regents of the Div.
of Univs. of the Fla. Dep't of Educ., 342 F.3d 1281,
1287 (11th Cir. 2003) (citation and quotations omitted).
Here, Plaintiff's “Complaint” was filed after
the 21-day deadline at least with regard to most of the
defendants, and Plaintiff has not sought leave to file it
pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2).
event, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's
“Complaint, ” and it adds no new defendants and
essentially seeks the same form of relief and makes the same
accusations as her previous filings. It, also like her
previous filings, is a shotgun pleading that is not presented
in a manner that would enable any defendants to fashion a
responsive pleading. As such, it is due to be dismissed for
the same reasons that her Amended Complaint was dismissed as
set out in this Court's Memorandum of Opinion and Order,
regardless of whether it was timely-filed or not.
Accordingly, insofar as Plaintiff is implicitly seeking to
further amend her complaint in this action, that request is
due to be denied on the grounds that amendment is futile.
See Maynard, 342 F.3d at 1287.
of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court will
treat Plaintiff's “Opposition” as a motion to
reconsider under Rule 59(e) and/or Rule 60(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. A motion for reconsideration is
treated as a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule
59(e). Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington,
Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005). A party may
not use a motion for reconsideration to introduce additional
facts or new theories of law not raised prior to the entry of
judgment or to litigate old matters. Arthur v. King,
500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007). “The only grounds
for granting [a Rule 59] motion are newly-discovered evidence
or manifest errors of law or fact.” Id.
(citation omitted). Plaintiff's “Opposition”
does not show any new evidence or an error of law or fact
committed by this Court in its earlier dismissal of her
60(b)(6) allows relief from judgment or order for any reason
justifying relief. See Cano v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337,
1339-40 (11th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff's pleading does not
present to the Court the kind of extraordinary circumstances
that would justify relief from judgment under the Rule.
Plaintiff's motion simply reasserts the accusations and
statements she made in her Amended Complaint.
foregoing reasons, to the extent Plaintiff's
“Complaint” and “Opposition” (docs.
46 & 47) can be construed as motions to amend her
complaint and/or reconsider this Court's dismissal of
this action, they are both hereby DENIED.