The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
GREGORY KELLY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 2:24-cv-348-RAH-JTA
) (WO)
THE WATER WORKS AND )
SANITARY SEWER BOARD OF THE )
CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Gregory Kelly’s March 18, 2025 filing entitled
Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Unserved Defendants and Plaintiff’s
Motion to Add New Parties and Claims Against the Defendants. (Doc. No. 47.) The court
construes the filing as containing both a motion for leave to amend the second amended
complaint and a motion for a hearing. For the reasons set forth below, both motions are
denied.
On today, the undersigned entered a Recommendation discussing Kelly’s
intractable history of filing shotgun pleadings. The court will not recount that history again.
As explained in that Recommendation, to no avail, Kelly has been provided ample
opportunity in this case to cure his shotgun pleading issues. Kelly’s current motion to
amend promises more of the same. “While Plaintiff sprinkles throughout his [motion to
amend] legal phrases and buzz words, there are no meaningful allegations or plausible
causes of action” alluded to anywhere in the motion. Kelly v. Montgomery Real Est., LLC,
No. 2:24-cv-297-RAH-KFP, 2025 WL 648645, at *6 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 17, 2025)
(recommending dismissal of another of Kelly’s shotgun complaints), report and
recommendation adopted sub nom. Kelly v. Montgomery Real Est. Buyers LLC, No. 2:24-
cv-00297-RAH, 2025 WL 445252 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 10, 2025). Rather, Kelly’s description!
of his putative amended claims “teems with conclusory allegations, including many that
are nonsensical.” /d. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend his second
amended complaint is denied.
It appears Kelly also seeks a hearing to address the merits of his claims or the motion
for leave to amend.” (Doc. No. 47 at 1, 4.) Because the motion for leave to amend the
second amended complaint is due to be denied and the undersigned recommends dismissal
of this action with prejudice, the undersigned finds a hearing is unnecessary.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Kelly’s motion for leave to amend the second amended complaint (Doc. No.
47) is DENIED.
2. Kelly’s motion for a hearing (Doc. No. 47) is DENIED.
DONE this Ist day of May, 2025.
igs T. ADAMS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
' Kelly’s motion does not comply with Local Rule 15.1 of the Local Rules for the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. Rule 15.1 requires motions to amend a pleading
be filed with an attached copy of the proposed amended pleading in its entirety, and “may not
incorporate any prior pleading, document or other papers by reference.” M.D. Ala. LR 15.1.
However, failure to comply with Rule 15.1 “is not grounds for denial of the motion.” /d.
? The purpose of the hearing Kelly requests is unclear.