Travis v. Family Support Division of the Missouri Department of Social Services

E.D. Missouri

Travis v. Family Support Division of the Missouri Department of Social Services

DecidedFebruary 6, 2025

Docket4:23-cv-01276

StatusUnknown

This text of Travis v. Family Support Division of the Missouri Department of Social Services (Travis v. Family Support Division of the Missouri Department of Social Services) 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

Travis v. Family Support Division of the Missouri Department of Social Services, (E.D. Mo. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION CORDNEY JACK TRAVIS, ) Plaintiff, ) Vv. ) No. 4:23-cv-01276-SEP ) FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION OF THE ) MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF ) SOCIAL SERVICES, et al., ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Cordney Jack Travis’s Motion to Accept Amended Complaint and Relate Back, Doc. [8]. On July 19, 2024, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Docs. [6], [7]. Seeking to amend, Plaintiff invokes 42 US.C. § 1983, alleging his right to due process was violated when his driver’s license was suspended in 2017 without adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. Doc. [8] at 2-3. Although a district court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), plaintiffs do not enjoy an absolute or automatic right to amend a deficient .. . [c]omplaint.” United States ex rel. Roop v. Hypoguard USA, Inc., 559 F.3d 818, 822 (8th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation omitted). Moreover, “interests of finality dictate that leave to amend should be less freely available after a final order has been entered.” /d. at 823; see also In re Medtronic, Inc., Sprint Fidelis Leads Prods. Liab. Litig., 623 F.3d 1200, 1208 (8th Cir. 2010) (“Post-dismissal motions to amend are disfavored.”). Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint would not remedy the deficiencies in his original complaint. In particular, his claims regarding the suspension of his license are time-barred under the five-year statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 cases. See Sulik v. Taney Cty., Mo., 393 F.3d 765, 767 (8th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Accept Amended Complaint and Relate Back, Doc. [8], is DENIED. _ Dated this 6th day of February, 2025. at » AS tA oe SARAH E. PITLYK 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 EASTERN DIVISION CORDNEY JACK TRAVIS, ) Plaintiff, ) Vv. ) No. 4:23-cv-01276-SEP ) FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION OF THE ) MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF ) SOCIAL SERVICES, et al., ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Cordney Jack Travis’s Motion to Accept Amended Complaint and Relate Back, Doc. [8]. On July 19, 2024, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Docs. [6], [7]. Seeking to amend, Plaintiff invokes 42 US.C. § 1983, alleging his right to due process was violated when his driver’s license was suspended in 2017 without adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. Doc. [8] at 2-3. Although a district court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), plaintiffs do not enjoy an absolute or automatic right to amend a deficient .. . [c]omplaint.” United States ex rel. Roop v. Hypoguard USA, Inc., 559 F.3d 818, 822 (8th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation omitted). Moreover, “interests of finality dictate that leave to amend should be less freely available after a final order has been entered.” /d. at 823; see also In re Medtronic, Inc., Sprint Fidelis Leads Prods. Liab. Litig., 623 F.3d 1200, 1208 (8th Cir. 2010) (“Post-dismissal motions to amend are disfavored.”). Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint would not remedy the deficiencies in his original complaint. In particular, his claims regarding the suspension of his license are time-barred under the five-year statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 cases. See Sulik v. Taney Cty., Mo., 393 F.3d 765, 767 (8th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Accept Amended Complaint and Relate Back, Doc. [8], is DENIED. _ Dated this 6th day of February, 2025. at » AS tA oe SARAH E. PITLYK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Travis v. Family Support Division of the Missouri Department of Social Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travis-v-family-support-division-of-the-missouri-department-of-social-moed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack