United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
ALCY JOSEPH, JR.
PEOPLE READY, ET AL.
RULING AND ORDER
JOHN W. DEGRAVELLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
matter comes before the Court on Motion to Amend and
Modify Ruler/Order (Doc. 41) and Motion for
Reconsideration of Judgment (Doc. 44) filed by pro
se Plaintiff Alcy Joseph, Jr. ("Plaintiff). People
Ready Inc., Denise Anders, Charlotte Maple, and Elizabeth
Davis (collectively "Defendants") opposed
Plaintiffs Motion to Amend in Defendant's Opposition
to Motion to Amend and Modify Ruler/Order. (Doc. 43.)
Plaintiff filed the Motion for Reconsideration
apparently as a reply. (Doc. 44.) Oral argument is not
necessary. The Court has carefully considered the law, the
allegations of the complaint, and the arguments and
submissions of the parties and is prepared to rule.
Relevant Factual Background
filed the instant suit on March 3, 2017 alleging a variety of
claims against Defendants including claims of breach of
contract, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ("Title
VII"), the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"), the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination
Act ("GINA"), and/or the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act ("ADEA"). (Doc. 1 at 3.) A Spears
Hearing was conducted on April 6, 2017 by Magistrate Judge
Wilder-Doomes to determine if any of the Plaintiffs claims
had merit. (Doc. 9.) Following the hearing, Magistrate
Wilder-Doomes ordered Plaintiff to provide supplemental
documentation of the (1) Notice of Right to Sue from the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC")
related to his claims and (2) the contract that forms the
basis of his breach of contract claims against defendants
within 30-days from the Spears Hearing. (Doc. 9 at 4.)
Plaintiff provided the Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC
on May 26, 2017. (Doc. 14-2.) Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment on August 15, 2017, to which Defendants
filed an opposition on October 12, 2017. (Doc. 19; Doc.
25-1.) This Court denied Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Doc. 26.)
then filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.
(Doc. 27.) On March 26, 2018, the Court granted
Defendants' motion but gave Plaintiff leave to amend to
cure the deficiencies. The Court also warned Plaintiff of
potential sanctions for any future frivolous pleadings. (Doc.
36.) Upon dismissal by this Court, Plaintiff filed a motion
to Amend and Modify the Ruling which was further denied by
this Court. (Doc. 37.) On April 26, 2018, following the
expiration of the 30-day deadline provided by the original
dismissal to amend the complaint to cure the stated
deficiencies, the Court dismissed all claims against
Defendants with prejudice. (Doc. 40).
instant ruling is to address two motions filed by Plaintiff
following the April 26, 2018 dismissal by this Court. First,
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend on April 30, 2018 (Doc.
41), which Defendants opposed (Doc. 43.) Plaintiff then filed
a Motion for Reconsideration on July 5, 2018. (Doc. 44.) As
will be detailed below, both of Plaintiffs motions lack
factual and evidentiary support, and seemingly reiterate the
initial complaint. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons,
Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint and Motion to Reconsider
Motion to Amend
Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) "requires the trial court
to grant leave to amend freely"; further "the
language of this rule evinces a bias in favor of granting
leave to amend." Jones v. Robinson Prop.
Grp., LP, 427 F.3d 987, 994 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal
citations omitted). However, "leave to amend is in no
way automatic, but the district court must possess a'
substantial reason' to deny a party's request for
leave to amend." Marucci Sports, L.L.C. v. Nat'l
Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 751 F.3d 368,
378 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Jones, 427 F.3d at 994).
The Fifth Circuit further described the district courts'
discretion on a motion to amend as follows:
The district court is entrusted with the discretion to grant
or deny a motion to amend and may consider a variety of
factors including "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory
motive on the part of the movant, repeated failures to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue
prejudice to the opposing party ..., and futility of the
amendment." Jones, 427 F.3d at 994. (citation
omitted). "In light of the presumption in favor of
allowing pleading amendments, courts of appeals routinely
hold that a district court's failure to provide an
adequate explanation to support its denial of leave to amend
justifies reversal.” Mayeaux v. La. Health Serv.
& Indent. Co., 376 F.3d 420, 426 (5th Cir. 2004)
(citation omitted). However, when the justification for the
denial is "readily apparent," a failure to explain
"is unfortunate but not fatal to affirmance if the
record reflects ample and obvious grounds for denying leave
to amend." (citation and internal quotation marks
Id., 751 F.3d at 378.
addition, the Fifth Circuit has made clear that "denying
a motion to amend is not an abuse of discretion if allowing
an amendment would be futile." Id. (citing
Boggs v. Miss., 331 F.3d 499, 508 (5th Cir. 2003)).
An amendment would be deemed futile "if it would fail to
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion." Id.
Motion to Amend is brief and primarily serves as a
reiteration of the initial complaint. (Doc. 41.) Plaintiff
re-alleges a breach of contract claim for failure to timely
pay him in accordance with "Company Policy," but he
has failed to provide this Court with such Company Policy (or
any details related to it) even after repeated chances to
amend and supplement. (Doc. 41 at 2.) Further Plaintiff
re-alleges age and disability discrimination, but again has
failed to provide this Court with pertinent facts such as his
age or disability for which he was allegedly discriminated.
has been given multiple times to supplement and amend his
complaint to state a viable claim but has failed to do so.
First, Magistrate Judge Wilder-Doomes permitted
supplementation of the complaint following the Spears Hearing
in April 2017. (Doc. 9.) Second, the Court provided Plaintiff
with another thirty days to amend his complaint, following
the dismissal of the claims on March 26, 2018. (Doc. 36.) The
Fifth Circuit's guidance makes clear that leave to amend
must not be granted if "amendment would be futile,"
or, to put another way, if an amendment would not survive a
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. Marucci Sports, L.L.C.,
751 F.3d at 378 (citing Boggs, 331 F.3d at ...