United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
D. Whitney Chief United States District Judge
MATTER comes before the Court on pro se
Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to Amend Complaint, (Doc.
Nos. 25, 35), Response to Answer, (Doc. No. 36), and Motion
for Leave to Serve Request for Admissions, (Doc. No. 39).
Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 passed
initial review on claims of deliberate indifference against
the Buncombe County Sheriff, Deputy Billy Watkins and Officer
John Doe. (Doc. No. 12). Defendants Watkins and the Sheriff
filed an Answer, (Doc. No. 24), and the Court entered a
Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan setting the deadline
for motions to amend as August 9, 2019, the discovery cutoff
date of October 18, 2019, and the dispositive motions
deadline as November 18, 2019, (Doc. No. 27).
has previously been instructed that “[p]iecemeal
filings will not be permitted” and that he may not
“amend his Complaint by merely adding defendants and
claims in a piecemeal fashion.” (Doc. No. 23 at 2). He
was further instructed that any amended complaint “will
supersede the prior pleadings so that any claims or parties
omitted [from an amended complaint] will be waived.”
nevertheless separately filed a Motion for Leave to Amend,
(Doc. No. 25), Statement of Claims, (Doc. No.2 6), and Second
Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 28). He subsequently filed a
Third Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 34), and Motion for Leave,
(Doc. No. 35), seeking to “join all defendants named in
case 1:19-cv-158-FDW …, and also all claims stated
therein.” (Doc. No. 35 at 1).
plaintiff may amend the complaint once as a matter of course
within 21 days after serving the complaint, or within 21 days
after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after
service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), which is
earlier. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1). A plaintiff may subsequently
amend with permission from the court which “shall be
freely granted when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(2). The Fourth Circuit “ha[s] interpreted Rule
15(a) to provide that ‘leave to amend a pleading should
be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the
opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the
moving party, or the amendment would have been
futile.'” Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404,
426 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (quoting
Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509
(4th Cir. 1986)).
has not complied with the Federal Rules or this Court's
Orders. His attempt to add piecemeal allegations and parties
is rejected. This denial is without prejudice for Plaintiff
to seek leave to amend in compliance with all applicable
timeliness and procedural requirements, including the Local
Rules of the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina and the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See, e.g., Mayle v.
Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 664 (2005) (discussing relation
back). Plaintiff is reminded that Rule 8(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure requires pleadings to contain a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief….”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). A Fourth Amended Complaint must be on a
§ 1983 form, which the Court will provide, and it must
refer to the instant case number so that it is docketed in
the correct case. A Fourth Amended Complaint must contain all
claims Plaintiff intends to bring in this action, identify
all defendants he intends to sue, and clearly set forth the
factual allegations against each of them. Plaintiff may not
amend his Complaint by merely adding defendants and claims in
a piecemeal fashion. A Fourth Amended Complaint will
supersede any Complaint that preceded it so that any claims
or parties omitted from the Fourth Amended Complaint will be
waived. See Young v. City of Mt. Ranier, 238 F.3d
567 (4th Cir. 2001).
pending is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve Request
for Admissions. (Doc. No. 39). Plaintiff's request for
discovery has been misdirected to the Court and will be
denied. See LCvR 26.2 (“The parties shall not
file any initial disclosures, designations of expert
witnesses and their reports, discovery requests or responses
therto, deposition transcripts, or other discovery material
unless: (1) directed to do so by the Court; (2) such
materials are necessary for use in an in-court proceeding; or
(3) such materials are filed in support of, or in opposition
to, a motion or petition.”); (Doc. No. 27) (Pretrial
Order and Case Management Plan). Plaintiff is instructed to
direct his discovery requests to the appropriate party or
parties in accordance with the applicable procedural rules
and Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan.
Plaintiff has filed a Response to Answer, (Doc. No. 36).
District courts have the inherent authority to manage their
dockets with a view toward the efficient and expedient
resolution of cases. Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S.Ct.
1885, 1892 (2016). Striking documents is within the
Court's inherent authority. See Iota Xi Chapter of
Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Patterson, 566 F.3d 138, 150
(4th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff's Response to the
Answer, (Doc. No. 36), is improper because it exceeds the
scope of the pleadings permitted by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a). The Response
to Answer, (Doc. No. 36), will therefore be stricken.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
Plaintiffs Motions for Leave to Amend Complaint, (Doc. Nos.
25, 35), are DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiffs Response to Answer, (Doc. No. 36), is
Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Serve Request for Admissions,
(Doc. No. 39), is DENIED
Clerk of Court is instructed to mail Plaintiff a blank copy