Jones v. Google LLC, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JOSEPH LEE JONES,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 18-4032-SAC-GEB

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. 30) and “production of documents

for discovery” (Doc. No. 31). This case has been closed since

mid-2018. 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. 20) 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 for relief from judgment, the court would

deny the motion because plaintiff has not persuasively presented

grounds for such extraordinary relief. See Allender v. Raytheon

Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1242 (10th Cir. 2006)(discussing

standards for Rule 60(b)(6) relief from judgment).

The court shall strike the material titled “production of

documents for discovery” (Doc. No. 31). 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

court in a closed case.

In conclusion, the amended complaint, treated as a motion to

amend the complaint, is denied and the production of 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