Ashton Muse v. Howard County Board of Education, et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT □ FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ASHTON MUSE, * Plaintiff, . *

v. * CIVIL NO. JKB-25-1670 HOWARD COUNTY BOARD OF * EDUCATION, et al., Defendants. * # * * x * * * * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. The Motion will be granted and Defendants will be directed to file renewed motions to dismiss. This case is in a somewhat odd procedural posture. Muse initially filed a Complaint, then a First Amended Complaint. Defendants filed motions to dismiss and to strike the First Amended Complaint; those motions are fully briefed. Muse then filed the pending Motion for Leave to File _ Second Amended Complaint, but failed to attach the proposed pleading, Certain Defendants filed oppositions, and Muse later provided the proposed Second Amended Complaint. One Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Court will grant Muse’s Motion for Leave to Amend. The Court must “freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P, 15(a)(2). A court “may deny leave to amend for reasons ‘such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of the allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.’” Glaser v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., 464 F.3d 474, 480 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182

(1962)). The Court cannot conclude that these circumstances are present here. The proposed Second Amended Complaint more clearly lays out Plaintiff's claims, and, unlike his First Amended Complaint, complies with the Court’s page limit requirements. Given that the Second Amended Complaint is now the operative pleading, the Court will deny without prejudice the pending motions directed at the First Amended Complaint. The Court recognizes that this course of events will work some inefficiency to the Defendants. However, Plaintiff has renumbered his claims, has asserted different claims against certain Defendants, and has included some new factual details. This circumstance makes it difficult for the Court to apply the pending motions to dismiss to the Second Amended Complaint. Thus, the most rational way forward is for Defendants to file renewed motions to dismiss. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. Muse’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 55) is GRANTED. ECF No. 60 is the operative complaint in this case. 2. The following motions are DENIED without prejudice: ECF Nos. 25, 37, 39, 40, and 41, 3. Defendants SHALL FILE renewed motions to dismiss on or before July 2, 2026. Plaintiff SHALL FILE any opposition on or before July 16, 2026. Defendants

. SHALL FILE any replies on or before July 30, 2026.

DATED this Fag of June, 2026. BY THE COURT: Dame Hh A? shar James K. Bredar United States District Judge