Mayard v. City of St. Paul
- Nancy Brasel
- 0:22-cv-00143
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Mayard v. City of St. Paul, Judge Leung denied Elsie Mayard’s amendment motion without prejudice because required filings were missing.
Elsie Mayard’s request to amend her complaint was denied without prejudice. The proposed additional defendants and requested additional relief were not added or decided in this order.
What happened
In Mayard v. City of St. Paul, Elsie Mayard, who was representing herself, asked to amend her complaint and apparently add four defendants and seek additional equitable relief.
The court denied the motion without prejudice because Mayard did not provide the required notice, legal memorandum, meet-and-confer statement, proposed amended complaint, or version showing the changes. The court also said she had not explained the substance of the proposed amendments.
Judge Tony N. Leung ruled that Mayard’s self-represented status did not excuse compliance with federal and local procedural rules. The order cautioned that any future amendment motion must follow those rules.
The detailed version
- Mayard v. City of St. Paul · No. 0:22-cv-00143
- Nancy Brasel
- May 27, 2022
Background
Elsie Mayard, proceeding without a lawyer, moved for permission to file an amended complaint. Based on her proposed order, the court understood that she generally sought to add Marcia C. Moernond, Patrick Shea, David D. Wagner, and Richard Kedrowski as defendants and to seek a permanent injunction and other equitable relief.
Reasoning
The court treated the request as a non-dispositive motion, meaning a motion that does not ordinarily decide the case’s claims. Under the District of Minnesota’s local rules, such a motion must be filed with several materials, including a notice of hearing, memorandum of law, any supporting affidavits and exhibits, a meet-and-confer statement unless an exception applies, and a proposed order. Mayard filed only a one-page motion and a proposed order.
The court also explained that Mayard had not identified the substance of the proposed amendments. In addition, the local rules required her to attach both a proposed amended pleading and a version showing how it differed from the existing complaint. She submitted neither. The court noted that it had previously reminded her that a motion to amend had to comply with that rule.
The court rejected any exception based on Mayard’s self-represented status, stating that self-represented parties must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s local rules.
Disposition
Judge Tony N. Leung ordered that Mayard’s “Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint,” ECF No. 15, was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as procedurally improper. The order cautioned that any future motion to amend must comply with all applicable procedural rules. The court did not decide the merits of Mayard’s underlying claims or proposed amendments.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.