From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Parker v. Haase

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Nov 2, 2012
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-14321 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 2, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. 2:12-CV-14321

11-02-2012

BRUCE PARKER, #593090, Plaintiff, v. LINDA HAASE, et al., Defendants.


HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS


ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT AND

DENYING MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND SERVICE

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's amended civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as his motions for appointment of counsel and service, in this closed case. The Court dismissed his initial complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and denied the same motions for appointment fo counsel and service. The Court did not retain jurisdiction over the case.

Petitioner has not moved to re-open this case or to proceed on an amended complaint. Nonetheless, any such request would be futile. While a federal court generally has discretion to allow amendment of a civil complaint, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), such is not the case where, as here, the Court has already dismissed the complaint. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, once a judgment has been entered in a case, the filing of an amendment is not allowed unless the judgment has been set aside or vacated. See In re Ferro Corp. Derivative Litigation, 511 F.3d 611, 624 (6th Cir. 2008); accord Griffey v. Lindsey, 345 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2003); Pitts v. Champion, 16 F. App'x 975, 977 (10th Cir. 2001); Harris v. City of Auburn, 27 F.3d 1284, 1287 (7th Cir.1994). No such action has occurred in this case. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to cure a defect in his initial pleadings, his complaint must be dismissed and his motions denied. The Court may not permit Plaintiff to amend his complaint to defeat summary dismissal. See Baxter v. Rose, 305 F.3d 486, 488-89 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612 (6th Cir. 1997)); see also Clayton v. United States Dep't. of Justice, et al., 136 F. App'x 840, 842 (6th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the amended complaint and DENIES the motions for appointment of counsel and service. This case is closed. No further pleadings should be filed in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on November 2, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Carol A. Hemeyer

Case Manager


Summaries of

Parker v. Haase

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Nov 2, 2012
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-14321 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 2, 2012)
Case details for

Parker v. Haase

Case Details

Full title:BRUCE PARKER, #593090, Plaintiff, v. LINDA HAASE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Nov 2, 2012

Citations

CASE NO. 2:12-CV-14321 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 2, 2012)