Critchfield v. Preston Pipelines Inc.

Background

The court had previously dismissed James Critchfield’s complaint with leave to amend because he had not properly served the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and had not plausibly stated an employment-discrimination claim. The court extended his deadline to file an amended complaint to September 24, 2020, and warned that failing to amend could result in dismissal.

Mr. Critchfield filed an amended complaint on September 17, 2020. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the amended complaint was improper and did not correct the problems identified in the earlier order.

Court’s Analysis

The court agreed with the defendants. The amended complaint alleged only that Mr. Critchfield believed he had complied with the court’s orders. It included a certificate of service showing that he served the defendants by mail, but the court reiterated that this method of service was improper.

The court also found that the amended complaint contained no claims or factual allegations supporting a claim for relief. This did not meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

Ruling

Judge Laurel Beeler granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Because Mr. Critchfield had already had prior opportunities to amend and had not corrected the identified problems, the court dismissed the amended complaint without leave to amend.