Peet v. City of Sikeston

E.D. Missouri

Peet v. City of Sikeston

DecidedApril 28, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-00055

StatusUnknown

This text of Peet v. City of Sikeston (Peet v. City of Sikeston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peet v. City of Sikeston, (E.D. Mo. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

GREGORY ALLEN PEET, SR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) Case no. 1:25-cv-00055-SNLJ ) CITY OF SIKESTON, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend his Complaint [Doc. 19]. Plaintiff submitted a proposed Amended Complaint [Doc. 19-1] with his motion. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court should freely grant leave to amend when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, a district court may deny leave to amend for a number of reasons, including a failure to follow procedural rules. See Ellis v. City of Minneapolis, 518 Fed.Appx. 502, 505 (8th Cir. 2013). Here, plaintiff failed to comply with the requirement in Local Rule 4.07 that “[a]ll new material in the amended pleading must be underlined and all material being removed must be struck through.” This requirement is particularly important here as plaintiff seeks leave to file an 80-page Amended Complaint to replace a 48-page Complaint and he does not provide any explanation in his motion to amend as to the changes he seeks to make. Additionally, the 80-page proposed Amended Complaint is repetitive and needlessly long in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’ and shall be “simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), 8(d)(1). Rule 12(f) prohibits “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous” matter ina pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Further, plaintiff's citations to “supporting case law” is improper with regard to his claims other than the Monell claims. This Court bears in mind that plaintiff is pro se, but that does not excuse him from complying with procedural law. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir.1984) (per curiam). The motion to amend will be denied due to plaintiff's failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 4.07. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend his Complaint [Doc. 19] is DENIED. SO ORDERED this 28th day of April, 2025. 4 STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH; JR’ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

GREGORY ALLEN PEET, SR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) Case no. 1:25-cv-00055-SNLJ ) CITY OF SIKESTON, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend his Complaint [Doc. 19]. Plaintiff submitted a proposed Amended Complaint [Doc. 19-1] with his motion. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court should freely grant leave to amend when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, a district court may deny leave to amend for a number of reasons, including a failure to follow procedural rules. See Ellis v. City of Minneapolis, 518 Fed.Appx. 502, 505 (8th Cir. 2013). Here, plaintiff failed to comply with the requirement in Local Rule 4.07 that “[a]ll new material in the amended pleading must be underlined and all material being removed must be struck through.” This requirement is particularly important here as plaintiff seeks leave to file an 80-page Amended Complaint to replace a 48-page Complaint and he does not provide any explanation in his motion to amend as to the changes he seeks to make. Additionally, the 80-page proposed Amended Complaint is repetitive and needlessly long in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’ and shall be “simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), 8(d)(1). Rule 12(f) prohibits “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous” matter ina pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Further, plaintiff's citations to “supporting case law” is improper with regard to his claims other than the Monell claims. This Court bears in mind that plaintiff is pro se, but that does not excuse him from complying with procedural law. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir.1984) (per curiam). The motion to amend will be denied due to plaintiff's failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 4.07. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend his Complaint [Doc. 19] is DENIED. SO ORDERED this 28th day of April, 2025. 4 STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH; JR’ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Peet v. City of Sikeston, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peet-v-city-of-sikeston-moed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack