United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER & REASONS
M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is pro se plaintiff Tracy Riley's
(“Riley”) motion for leave to amend her second
amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.
25, 2018, Riley filed her original complaint against over 100
defendants. On September 12, 2018, she filed an
amended complaint, naming numerous additional
defendants. Riley now seeks leave to file a second
15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may
amend its pleading once as a matter of course within:
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is
required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or
21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or
(f), whichever is earlier.
(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party
may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's
written consent or the court's leave. The court should
freely give leave when justice so requires.
does not contend that the defendants have consented to her
request. Although Rule 15(a)(2) provides a “generous
standard” by which courts should assess motions to
amend pleadings, such a standard is “tempered by the
necessary power of a district court to manage a case.”
Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563,
566 (5th Cir. 2003). “Denial of leave to amend may be
warranted for undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on
the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or
futility of a proposed amendment.” United States v.
Cardinal Health, Inc., 625 F.3d 262, 270 (5th Cir.
January 2017, Riley filed a separate lawsuit in this Court
based on the same set of facts underlying the present
lawsuit. The 2017 lawsuit named only twenty
defendants, but all are also named as defendants in this
case. The Court dismissed the 2017 case without prejudice for
Riley's failure to effect service on the defendants,
Riley filed this lawsuit in July 2018-this time naming over
100 defendants. Since then, Riley has amended her complaint
once, but the first amended complaint contained no new
factual allegations; it merely added new defendants.
Similarly, Riley's proposed second amended complaint
includes no new factual allegations. It simply names more
defendants. Remarkably, since Riley filed her first lawsuit
before this Court in 2017, her allegations of unlawful
conduct have not changed; however, her list of accused
wrongdoers has more than quadrupled.
Court concludes that Riley should not be permitted to amend
her complaint again. Riley's request to amend comes
almost four months after she filed her original complaint and
over two months after she filed her first amended complaint.
Yet, the motion does not provide a reason for the amendment
other than the fact that Riley is a pro se
litigant. Riley has not offered any explanation as
to why the new defendants were not included in either the
original or the amended complaint, ...