Stringer v. Jackson

18 Citing cases

  1. Wells v. Cohen

    2:22-cv-516-ECM-SMD (M.D. Ala. Jun. 23, 2023)

    A reviewing court should freely give a pro se plaintiff leave to amend a deficient pleading. Stringer v. Jackson, 392 Fed.Appx. 759, 760 (11th Cir. 2010). However, a court need not give a pro se plaintiff leave to amend “where amendment would be futile”-i.e., where the complaint as amended would still be subject to dismissal.

  2. Smith v. Ret. Sys. of Ala.

    2:23-cv-24-ECM-SMD (M.D. Ala. May. 19, 2023)

    A reviewing court should freely give a pro se plaintiff leave to amend a deficient pleading. Stringer v. Jackson, 392 Fed.Appx. 759, 760 (11th Cir. 2010). However, a court need not give a pro se plaintiff leave to amend “where amendment would be futile”-i.e., where the complaint as amended would still be subject to dismissal.

  3. Nails v. Dale Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't

    1:22-cv-717-RAH-SMD (M.D. Ala. Mar. 27, 2023)

    A reviewing court should freely give a pro se plaintiff leave to amend a deficient pleading. Stringer v. Jackson, 392 Fed.Appx. 759, 760 (11th Cir. 2010). However, a court need not give leave to amend “where amendment would be futile”-i.e., where the complaint as amended would still be subject to dismissal.

  4. Ballard v. Eclectic City Police Dep't

    2:22-cv-405-RAH-SMD (M.D. Ala. Feb. 7, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Stringer v. Jackson, 392 Fed.Appx. 759, 760 (11th Cir. 2010). However, a court need not give a pro se plaintiff leave to amend “where amendment would be futile”-i.e., where the complaint as amended would still be subject to dismissal.

  5. Williams v. State

    3:22-CV-275-RAH-KFP (M.D. Ala. Sep. 20, 2022)

    Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2); Stringer v. Jackson, 392 Fed.Appx. 759, 760 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Hall v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 367 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (11th Cir. 2004)).

  6. Smith v. Jackson Hosp.

    2:21-cv-238-RAH-SMD (M.D. Ala. May. 18, 2022)   Cited 4 times

    A reviewing court should freely give a pro se plaintiff leave to amend a deficient pleading. Stringer v. Jackson, 392 Fed.Appx. 759, 760 (11th Cir. 2010). However, a court need not give a pro se plaintiff leave to amend “where amendment would be futile”-i.e., where the complaint as amended would still be subject to dismissal.

  7. Slaughter v. Ga. Dep't of Corr.

    CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:15-cv-90 (S.D. Ga. May. 10, 2016)

    Indeed, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that a prisoner plaintiff has a right to amend his complaint as a matter of course under Rule 15(a) when "he ha[s] filed his motion to amend before the district court ha[s] dismissed his complaint and before any responsive pleadings ha[ve] been filed." Stringer v. Jackson, 392 F. App'x 759, 760-61 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Brown, 387 F.3d at 1349). Because the Prison Litigation Reform Act also "does not preclude a district court from granting a motion to amend" under Rule 15(a), the Court has ruled that it is an abuse of discretion to deny a motion filed under those circumstances.

  8. Holmes v. Williams

    CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:15-cv-12 (S.D. Ga. Jul. 20, 2015)   Cited 10 times

    Indeed, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that a prisoner plaintiff has a right to amend his complaint as a matter of course under Rule 15(a) when "he ha[s] filed his motion to amend before the district court ha[s] dismissed his complaint and before any responsive pleadings ha[ve] been filed." Stringer v.Jackson, 392 F. App'x 759, 760-61 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Brown, 387 F.3d at 1349). Because the Prison Litigation Reform Act also "does not preclude a district court from granting a motion to amend" under Rule 15(a), the Court has ruled that it is an abuse of discretion to deny a motion filed under those circumstances.

  9. Emrit v. Barkley

    2:23-cv-17-RAH-SMD (M.D. Ala. Aug. 7, 2023)

    . A court should dismiss a pro se complaint without providing leave to amend “where amendment would be futile” -i.e., where the complaint as amended would still be subject to dismissal. Stringer v. Jackson, 392 Fed.Appx. 759, 760 (11th Cir. 2010); Smith v. Hildebrand, 244 Fed.Appx. 288, 290 (11th Cir. 2007).

  10. Jones v. Moody

    2:21-cv-429-WHA-SMD (M.D. Ala. Sep. 29, 2021)

    A court should dismiss a pro se complaint without providing leave to amend “where amendment would be futile”-i.e., where the complaint as amended would still be subject to dismissal.Stringer v. Jackson, 392 Fed.Appx. 759, 760 (11th Cir. 2010).