Stephenson v. Langston
Docket: Civ.A. No. 00-192(RMU)
Court: District Court, District of Columbia; November 19, 2001; Federal District Court
The court, presided over by District Judge Urbina, grants the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint while denying the defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment without prejudice. The case originated when the plaintiff filed a pro se complaint on August 9, 2000, later obtaining legal representation. Following multiple motions for extensions of time and a motion from the defendants to dismiss or seek summary judgment on April 2, 2001, the plaintiff conceded that certain common-law claims should be dismissed and filed a cross-motion to amend the complaint on July 18, 2001. The defendants opposed this amendment, arguing it would be futile. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, parties may amend their complaints under specific conditions, and a motion to dismiss is not considered a responsive pleading. A court may deny a motion to amend if the proposed changes would not withstand a motion to dismiss. Pro se litigants are afforded more leniency in amending their complaints, though they must still adhere to procedural rules. The court ultimately decides to allow the plaintiff to amend the complaint despite the defendants' claims of futility. The plaintiff, initially representing himself, has now obtained legal counsel and is submitting an amended complaint, marking the first such submission by an attorney. The court acknowledges this transition and grants the plaintiff leniency, determining that the defendants' futility argument is not fair. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), the plaintiff is allowed to amend his complaint as a matter of course since this is his first request and the court has not yet addressed the defendants' pending motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, nor have the defendants filed a responsive pleading. Consequently, the court grants the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the complaint while denying the defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment without prejudice. The plaintiff's proposed new complaint is referred to as a second amended complaint; however, as no first amended complaint was filed, this is effectively the plaintiff's first attempt to amend. An order consistent with this ruling will be issued separately on November 19, 2001.