Johnson v. Lawless
1:20-cv-00157
S.D. OhioJul 14, 2020Background:
- Plaintiff Michael L. Johnson, an inmate, sued corrections officer Bryan Lawless (official and individual capacities) alleging First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment excessive force while housed at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility.
- The magistrate judge’s April 29, 2020 R&R recommended dismissing most claims but left Johnson’s Eighth Amendment excessive-force and First Amendment retaliation claims against Lawless pending to the extent they seek individual-capacity damages and declaratory relief; the District Court adopted that R&R on July 1, 2020.
- Defendant Lawless filed an answer on June 18, 2020.
- Johnson filed a second motion for leave to amend the complaint (Doc. 22).
- The court held that, under Rule 7(b) and past authority, a motion to amend must include a complete proposed amended complaint so the court and opposing parties can evaluate the changes; Johnson’s motion failed to attach a proposed amended complaint and provided only conclusory descriptions of the intended amendments.
- The magistrate judge recommended denial of the second motion to amend for noncompliance with Rule 7(b) (Doc. 22). The court had previously denied the first motion to amend for the same reason.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson's second motion for leave to amend complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b) | Johnson seeks leave to amend but did not attach a proposed amended complaint or specify changes | Lawless/Respondent: procedural noncompliance prevents meaningful adjudication; Rule 7(b) requires a proposed pleading | Motion to amend (Doc. 22) recommended DENIED for failure to attach proposed amended complaint and satisfy Rule 7(b) particularity requirements |
| Whether official-capacity monetary claims against Lawless may proceed | Johnson sought damages against Lawless in official capacity | Lawless: official-capacity monetary damages are barred | Earlier R&R (adopted by district court) dismissed official-capacity damages; only individual-capacity damages and declaratory relief remain pending |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Planas, 151 F.R.D. 547 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (motion to amend must be accompanied by the proposed amended complaint to meet Rule 7(b) particularity)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985) (failure to object to a magistrate judge's report may forfeit appellate rights)
- United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981) (procedural rules for objections to magistrate judge recommendations and appellate preservation)