Johnson v. Ramsey County ADC
- Becky Thorson
- 0:22-cv-00494
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Johnson v. Ramsey County ADC, Judge Thorson denied Johnson’s amendment motion without prejudice, extended the deadline, and allowed a new motion with a proposed complaint.
Eugene Laron Johnson and defendants Ramsey County ADC, Officer 2369, and Sgt. Sean Delrosario; the order governed Johnson’s ability to seek an amended complaint and set related filing deadlines.
What happened
In Johnson v. Ramsey County ADC, Eugene Laron Johnson asked to amend his complaint. He had previously filed a proposed amended complaint without asking permission, and the court struck it. Johnson later said he did not want that proposed complaint used because he wanted to correct it.
The court denied Johnson’s motion to amend without prejudice because he withdrew the proposed amended complaint, leaving no proposed pleading for the defendants to review. The court extended the amendment deadline from September 12 to October 7, 2022, and allowed Johnson to file a new motion with a complete proposed amended complaint.
Judge Becky R. Thorson also set deadlines for the defendants’ response and any reply by Johnson if the defendants oppose amendment based on claimed futility.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Ramsey County ADC · No. 0:22-cv-00494
- Becky Thorson
- Sept. 19, 2022
Background
Eugene Laron Johnson moved to amend his complaint. Before filing that motion, Johnson had filed a document labeled “Amended Complaint” without first seeking permission. The court struck that document because the applicable scheduling order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 required a motion to amend unless amendment was allowed as a matter of course.
Johnson then filed a motion to amend, but he did not attach a proposed amended complaint as required by District of Minnesota Local Rule 15.1. The court temporarily treated the previously stricken document as the proposed amended complaint and set a briefing schedule. Before the defendants responded, however, Johnson wrote to the court that he did not want the earlier proposed amended complaint used because he wanted to correct mistakes, including how he sued the defendants in their official and individual capacities.
The defendants argued that Johnson had withdrawn his request and that the motion should be treated as withdrawn. The court agreed that Johnson had withdrawn the proposed amended complaint. Because there was no proposed amended pleading for the defendants to review and respond to, the court found that the motion was incomplete.
Ruling
The court denied without prejudice Johnson’s motion to amend. “Without prejudice” means the ruling did not prevent him from filing another motion. The court did not decide whether any future amendment should be allowed.
The court extended the scheduling order’s deadline for filing a motion to amend from September 12, 2022, to October 7, 2022. It allowed Johnson to file another motion by that date, but required him to include a complete proposed amended complaint. The new pleading could not incorporate an earlier pleading by reference. The defendants could respond within 14 days after receiving the new motion, and Johnson could file a reply within 14 days after receiving any opposition based on alleged futility.
The court noted that Johnson was representing himself and found that he had acted diligently in trying to meet the original deadline. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.