stating standard for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e)
How later courts described this case
- stating standard for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JOSEPH LEE JONES,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 20-3072-SAC
GOOGLE LLC, INC.,
Defendant.
O R D E R
This case is before the court upon what plaintiff has titled
an “amended complaint” (Doc. No. 44) and “production of documents
for discovery” (Doc. No. 45). This case was recently closed. Doc.
No. 43. Plaintiff may not file an amended complaint as of course.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1). Nor may plaintiff amend the complaint
in a closed case without first reopening the case. See Ruotolo v.
City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2nd Cir. 2008); Weiss v.
Cooley, 230 F.3d 1027, 2014 (7th Cir. 2000).
If the court treated the “amended complaint” as a motion to
amend and if such a motion could be considered in a closed case,
the court would still deny the motion for the following reasons.
First, the proposed complaint, which is difficult to decipher,
fails to state a plausible claim for relief and is therefore
futile. The court has previously explained (see Doc. No. 42) that
plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the Kansas Consumer
Protection Act. The amended complaint seeks to add constitutional
claims, but does not include allegations showing that defendants
acted under any state governmental authority which would be
necessary to raise a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). If the court treated the “amended
complaint” as a motion to alter or amend judgment, the court would
deny the motion because plaintiff has not persuasively argued new
evidence, a change in controlling law, or clear error or manifest
injustice. See Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012
(10th Cir. 2000)(stating standard for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P.
59(e)).
The court shall strike the material titled “production of
documents for discovery” (Doc. No. 45). This material appears to
be improperly filed with the court. See D.Kan.R. 26.3(a). If the
court considered the materials as some kind of support for the
proposed amended complaint, the court would still find that the
complaint fails to state a claim and is improperly presented to
the court in a closed case.
In conclusion, the amended complaint, treated as a motion to
amend the complaint, is denied and the production of documents for
discovery is ordered stricken.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 16th day of April 2020, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/Sam A. Crow_____________
U.S. District Senior Judge