Domonique Wilson v. MDHHS Wayne County, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: December 15, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-13196
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DOMONIQUE WILSON, Case No. 25-13196 Plaintiff, Hon. Denise Page Hood v.

MDHHS WAYNE COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants. ______________________________/

ORDER STRIKING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 20)

This matter is before the Court on pro se1 Plaintiff Domonique Wilson’s second Amended Complaint filed December 11, 2025. (ECF No. 20). The Second Amended Complaint is stricken for the reasons set forth below. On October 9, 2025, Plaintiffs Domonique Wilson and Candace Walton filed a Complaint against various Defendants. (ECF No. 1) On November 26, 2025, an Amended Complaint dropping Plaintiff Candace Walton. In addition,

1 Error! Main Document Only.Pro se complaints are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the Supreme Court has “never suggested procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.” McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). Indeed, a pro se litigant “must conduct enough investigation to draft pleadings that meet the requirements of the federal rules.” Burnett v. Grattan, 468 U.S. 42, 50 (1984). Courts have refused to excuse pro se litigants who failed to follow basic procedural requirements such as meeting “readily comprehended” court filing deadlines. E.g., Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991); Eglinton v. Loyer, 340 F.3d 331, 335 (6th Cir. 2003). other Defendants were either dropped or added. (ECF No. 12) On December 11, 2025, Plaintiff Dominique Wilson filed a second Amended Complaint, without

leave of court or consent from the Defendants. (ECF No. 20) A party may file a second amended complaint under Rule 15(a)(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, once as a matter of course before a responsive pleading

is served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course no later than . . . 21 days after serving it.”). Plaintiffs have “an absolute right to amend their complaint one time before a responsive pleading is served.” Peguese v. PNC Bank, N.A., 306 F.R.D. 540, 546 (E.D. Mich. 2015)

(quoting In re Alfes, 709 F.3d 631, 639 (6th Cir. 2013)(quotation omitted)). However, once a party has exercised its right to amend as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1), any subsequent amendments, including a second amended

complaint, require either the court’s permission or the opposing party’s consent under Rule 15(a)(2)(“In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.”). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). When a plaintiff files an amended complaint as a matter of course under

Rule 15(a)(1) and thereafter files another or second amended complaint, it is proper to strike the second amended pleading if filed without the defendants’ consent nor the court’s permission as required by Rule 15(a)(2). West v. Ann Arbor Housing Comm’n, Case No. 17-CV-10566, 2018 WL 654839, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 1, 2018).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 20) is STRICKEN. At this time, the governing complaint is the Amended Complaint

filed on November 26, 2025, ECF No. 12.

s/Denise Page Hood DENISE PAGE HOOD United States District Judge DATED: December 15, 2025