From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grace v. Wallace

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
Aug 9, 2016
No. 1:16-CV-70 SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Aug. 9, 2016)

Opinion

No. 1:16-CV-70 SNLJ

08-09-2016

WILLIAM GRACE, Plaintiff, v. IAN WALLACE, et al., Defendants


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion to amend and motions for reconsideration. The motions are denied.

Plaintiff moves to amend his complaint to add a claim against defendant James Hurley. To obtain leave to file an amended complaint, "a party must submit the proposed amendment along with its motion." Clayton v. White Hall School Dist., 778 F.2d 457, 460 (8th Cir. 1985); see Wolgin v. Simon, 722 F.2d 389, 395 (8th Cir. 1983) ("Absent some indication as to what might be added to the complaint to make it viable, the [moving party] is not entitled to leave to amend."). Plaintiff did not submit an amended complaint with his motion. So, the motion is denied.

Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider the dismissal of the supervisory defendants because they were not personally involved in the alleged deprivations of his civil rights. Plaintiff argues that they were personally responsible because they are supervisors and denied his grievances. Plaintiff is incorrect. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) ("Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution."); Camberos v. Branstad, 73 F.3d 174, 176 (8th Cir. 1995) ("a general responsibility for supervising the operations of a prison is insufficient to establish the personal involvement required to support liability."); George v. Smith, 507 F. 3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007) ("Only persons who cause or participate in the [constitutional] violations are responsible. Ruling against a prisoner on an administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the violation."). As a result, the motions are denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to amend [ECF No. 7] is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motions for reconsideration [ECF Nos. 12, 13, 14] are DENIED.

Dated this 9th day of August, 2016.

/s/_________

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Grace v. Wallace

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
Aug 9, 2016
No. 1:16-CV-70 SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Aug. 9, 2016)
Case details for

Grace v. Wallace

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM GRACE, Plaintiff, v. IAN WALLACE, et al., Defendants

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Aug 9, 2016

Citations

No. 1:16-CV-70 SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Aug. 9, 2016)