Leventhal v. Tomford
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:18-cv-00320
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Leventhal v. Tomford, Judge Menendez denied without prejudice Leventhal’s motion to add defendants because he provided neither a proposed complaint nor supporting allegations.
Howard E. Leventhal’s request to add four defendants and amend his complaint was denied without prejudice; the opinion does not identify the four proposed defendants by name.
What happened
In Leventhal v. Tomford, Howard E. Leventhal, representing himself, asked to add four defendants to his lawsuit. The court treated his filing as a request to file a second amended complaint.
Leventhal did not submit the proposed complaint required by court rules, and he did not describe the allegations against the people he wanted to add. The court also said other documents he filed could not serve as an amended complaint because their purpose and legal claims were unclear.
The court denied the motion without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar a properly supported future request to amend. Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez said any proposed complaint would need to clearly state the claims and facts involving each defendant.
The detailed version
- Leventhal v. Tomford · No. 0:18-cv-00320
- Eric Tostrud
- Aug. 17, 2018
Background
Howard E. Leventhal, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a memorandum concerning the defendants’ capacity and requested additional service. Because he sought to add defendants, the court interpreted the filing as a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
Leventhal had already filed an original complaint and amended it once as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. He then identified four people he wanted to add as defendants, but he did not submit a proposed second amended complaint or specific allegations against those people.
Leventhal also filed a memorandum concerning alleged abuse of an elderly inmate by Defendant Dr. Rice and two declarations from fellow inmates. The court said the purpose of those documents was unclear and that they did not provide a clear claim that could serve as an amended complaint.
Court’s analysis
After a party has amended once as a matter of right, Rule 15 generally requires the court’s permission for another amendment. Local Rule 15.1 requires a motion to amend to include a copy of the proposed amended pleading, which must be complete in itself rather than incorporate an earlier pleading.
The court held that Leventhal’s request did not satisfy those requirements. It also stated that, even allowing for the more flexible standards applied to people representing themselves, a complaint must give each defendant notice of the allegations against that defendant. The court could not construct a complaint from Leventhal’s filings or discern a clear cause of action from them.
The court noted that it would waive the local rule’s redlining requirement because Leventhal was incarcerated and might lack suitable word-processing software. It did not waive the requirement to provide a proposed amended pleading or factual allegations. The court further explained that a future proposed complaint would need to provide a short and plain statement of the claim and factual allegations supporting each required element of the asserted legal theory.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez ordered that Leventhal’s motion to alter, amend, or supplement the pleadings and request additional service was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims or rule on whether the proposed defendants could ultimately be added.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.