Opinion
22-cv-10660
06-16-2022
DARREN JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN SERMINSKI, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING (1) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 7) AND (2) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 8)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Darren Johnson is a state prisoner in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (the “MDOC”). On March 22, 2022, Johnson filed this action against several MDOC employees. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Johnson alleged, among other things, that certain MDOC employees lost his personal property. (See id.) Johnson also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Application, ECF No. 2.) The Court concluded that Johnson was not entitled to in forma pauperis status because he had had at least three prior suits dismissed for being frivolous and he had not sufficiently alleged that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury. (See Order, ECF No. 6.) The Court therefore denied Johnson's application to proceed in forma pauperis, and it dismissed his Complaint for failing to pay the required filing fee. (See id.; see also Judgment, ECF No. 7.)
Johnson has now filed two motions with the Court: (1) a motion to alter or amend the judgment (see Mot., ECF No. 7) and (2) a motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint (see Mot., ECF No. 8). The Court has carefully reviewed both motions and DENIES them.
With respect to the motion to alter or amend judgment, Johnson has not shown that the Court erred in any way when it dismissed his Complaint without prejudice. With respect to the motion for leave to amend, Johnson has neither presented the Court a proposed Amended Complaint to review nor sufficiently persuaded the Court that any amendments he wishes to make could cure the deficiencies in his claims.
For all of the reasons explained above, Johnson's motion to alter or amend judgment (ECF No. 7) and his motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.