Richardson v. Gardner

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

ANGELA SCHUNCEY RICHARDSON PLAINTIFF ADC # 712575

v. 3:23CV00119-KGB-JTK

GARDNER, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Angela Schuncey Richardson (“Plaintiff”) has filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. (Doc. No. 29). Defendants have opposed the Motion. (Doc. No. 32). For the reasons set out below, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. No. 29) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff says that she needs “to add new parties and new events that occurred after her surgery on her ankle with the McPherson medical staff” after she filed her Complaint and to amend her Complaint as to events that happened before she filed her Complaint. (Id.). Plaintiff does not, however, describe the Defendants she wishes to add or specifically why. She also did not explain how she wishes to amend her Complaint as to events that happened before she filed suit. Further, Plaintiff did not attach a draft of the proposed Amended Complaint to her Motion. While leave to amend should be freely granted when justice so requires, without further details or a proposed Amended Complaint, the Court cannot determine if allowing amendment would be appropriate or futile. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff is cautioned that an Amended Complaint would render her original Complaint without legal effect.1 If Plaintiff elects to amend her Compliant, only claims properly set out in

1 “An amended complaint ‘ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.’” In Home Health, Inc. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 101 F.3d 600, 603 (8th Cir. the Amended Complaint will be allowed to proceed, and those claims will be subject to screening under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Plaintiff a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983 form. IT IS SO ORDERED this 31* day of October, 2023.

JEROME T. KEARNEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1996), quoting International Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 556 F.2d 665, 668 (2d Cir. 1994) (other citations omitted).