Opinion
2:19-CV-12505
08-04-2022
MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, JR., Plaintiff, v. PATRICIA PENMAN, ET AL., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND/REFILE AND DISMISSING THE AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
TERRENCE G. BERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Michigan prisoner Michael B. Williams, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in August of 2019 challenging his ongoing state criminal proceedings and his conditions of confinement at the Wayne County Jail. ECF No. 1. In February 2020, the Court dismissed the condition of confinement claims based upon misjoinder and dismissed the state criminal proceedings claims pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983 and based upon the immunity of the defendant state prosecutors and judges. Heck v. Humphrey holds that a state prisoner does not state a cognizable civil rights claim challenging his imprisonment if a ruling on his claim would necessarily render his continuing confinement invalid, until and unless the reason for his continued confinement has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or has been called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The Court did not retain jurisdiction over the case. ECF Nos. 13, 14.
The matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to amend/refile the complaint (dated in October, 2021), as well as his amended complaint (undated) (both postmarked in November, 2021). He essentially seeks to pursue similar claims concerning the validity of his state criminal proceedings against the same defendants, as well as new claims against several new defendants. ECF Nos. 17, 18.
Plaintiff's civil rights complaint is no longer pending before the Court. Therefore, he cannot amend that complaint by filing a motion. 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 case. 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. 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 Fed.Appx. 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. The Court properly dismissed the original complaint, and Plaintiff's proposed amendments would not alter that decision. Plaintiff's proper recourse is to file a new complaint in accordance with the federal rules, not to reopen this closed case. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to amend/refile his civil rights complaint and DISMISSES without prejudice his amended civil rights complaint. This case remains closed. No further pleadings should be filed in this matter. Additional filings may be stricken.
IT IS SO ORDERED.