Kelly v. Plaid Moose Inc., The
- John Tunheim
- 0:23-cv-03358
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Kelly v. Plaid Moose, Judge Tunheim denied Stephen Kelly’s request to amend his complaint because he did not submit the required proposed pleading.
Stephen P. Kelly’s motion to amend or redact claims was denied. The opinion states that Kelly represented himself; it does not describe any separate relief granted to or against The Plaid Moose Inc.
What happened
Stephen P. Kelly, representing himself, asked to redact claims or file an amended complaint after the court had dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim.
The court said Kelly’s motion did not include a proposed amended complaint or a version showing the changes, as required by the District of Minnesota’s local rules.
Judge John R. Tunheim denied Kelly’s motion for leave to amend because the court could not evaluate the proposed changes or determine whether amendment would be proper.
The detailed version
- Kelly v. Plaid Moose Inc., The · No. 0:23-cv-03358
- John Tunheim
- May 14, 2024
Background
The court had previously dismissed Stephen P. Kelly’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Kelly then filed a motion asking to redact certain claims or file an amended complaint. Before the district court could decide that motion, Kelly appealed the dismissal. The Eighth Circuit later sent the case back for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to rule on Kelly’s motion.
Reason for the ruling
The court explained that it generally reads filings by people without lawyers generously, but those litigants still must follow substantive and procedural law. District of Minnesota Local Rule 15.1(b) requires a motion to amend a pleading to include both a copy of the proposed amended pleading and a version showing how it differs from the existing pleading.
Kelly’s motion included neither document. Without a proposed amended complaint, the court could not decide whether Kelly should be allowed to amend, including whether the proposed amendment would state a valid claim or whether amendment would be futile.
Disposition
The court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Redact Certain Claims, or File an Amended Civil Complaint. The order did not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.