Tyson v. Carter, 3:22-cv-00211

Background

Plaintiff Steve Tyson alleges constitutional violations arising from an October 31, 2021 traffic stop and sued Trooper Mutawakkil Carter (and others) in Ohio state court; the case was removed to federal court by Carter on August 3, 2022.
Tyson filed successive amended complaints: a First Amended Complaint in state court, then a Second Amended Complaint after removal; the Second Amended Complaint substituted a non‑police informant (Robert Hagen, a security guard) for a previously alleged police co‑conspirator and dropped other defendants.
Carter moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (Rule 12(b)) and later moved to strike and dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for procedural defects and on substantive grounds.
The magistrate judge held Tyson timely amended as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) because the Second Amended Complaint was filed within 21 days of Carter’s Rule 12(b) filing, and therefore denied Carter’s motion to strike and accepted the Second Amended Complaint.
Tyson’s later attempts to file third and fourth amended complaints were filed during a court‑imposed stay and were denied (Third: denied as moot; Fourth: denied without prejudice) for violating the stay and for potential futility (addition of the State of Ohio).
The magistrate recommended Carter’s first motion to dismiss be denied as moot (superseded by the operative complaint) and Carter’s second motion to dismiss be denied without prejudice to permit a response tailored to the Second Amended Complaint; the stay was recommended to be lifted.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Second Amended Complaint was properly filed without leave	Tyson: entitled to amend once as of right under Rule 15(a)(1)(B) because he filed within 21 days of Carter’s Rule 12(b) motion	Carter: Plaintiff had already amended in state court and therefore needed leave or consent to amend in federal court	Held: Tyson could amend as of right after removal under Rule 15(a)(1)(B); motion to strike denied and Second Amended Complaint accepted
Whether failure to serve the Second Amended Complaint or include a certificate of service warrants striking	Tyson: alleges defect cured (and ultimately filed certificate/summons?)	Carter: no service and no certificate of service as required by Rule 5 and local rule	Held: Strike denied—Carter received the filing (no prejudice shown); Tyson reminded to include certificates of service going forward
Whether third/fourth proposed amendments filed during a stay should be allowed	Tyson: sought leave to file additional amendments (including adding State of Ohio)	Carter: (implicit) amendments improper during stay and would prejudice him	Held: Third Amended Complaint denied as moot; Fourth denied without prejudice because filed in violation of stay and addition of State of Ohio would be futile (Eleventh Amendment)
Whether Carter’s motions to dismiss remain viable	Tyson: Second Amended Complaint changes allegations (e.g., informant identity) affecting Carter’s prior arguments	Carter: reasserted grounds from first motion to dismiss and sought dismissal of the operative complaint	Held: First motion to dismiss denied as moot (superseded); second motion denied without prejudice to permit Carter to refile a motion/response addressing the operative Second Amended Complaint’s altered allegations

Key Cases Cited

Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Mich., 236 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2000) (an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint)
General Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 F.2d 1119 (6th Cir. 1990) (trial court has broad discretion on motions for leave to amend)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend should be freely given absent undue reasons)
Pittman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 901 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2018) (enumerating grounds to deny leave to amend: undue delay, bad faith, futility, prejudice)
Jackson v. City of Cleveland, 925 F.3d 793 (6th Cir. 2019) (intra‑corporate conspiracy doctrine in § 1983 suits)
Hull v. Cuyahoga Valley Joint Vocational Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 926 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991) (if all defendants are members of same entity, conspiracy claim may be barred)
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits naming a state or its agencies as defendants)
Green v. Mason, 504 F. Supp. 3d 813 (S.D. Ohio 2020) (noting amended complaint generally moots motion to dismiss directed at earlier complaint)
In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litig., [citation="709 F. App'x 779"] (6th Cir.) (discussing Eleventh Amendment immunity)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (procedures and consequences for objections to magistrate judge reports)
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981) (procedural consequences for failing to object to magistrate reports)