United States District Court, District of Maryland
March 13, 2015
AARON SLOAN, # 339875 Plaintiff,
OFFICER J. LEE, et al. Defendants
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
James K. Bredar, United States District Judge.
On January 20, 2015, the court denied preliminary injunctive relief to plaintiff Aaron Sloan, dismissed Warden Richard Graham, the Division of Corrections, and Western Correctional Institution as defendants, dismissed plaintiffs claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act for failure to state a claim,  and granted summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants. (ECF 41). Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint. (ECF 42.) The Court denied the motion, finding that plaintiffs proposed amendments were futile; they reiterated the same legal claims and allegations of fact presented in plaintiffs earlier complaint. (ECF 43.) Pending before the court is plaintiffs second motion for leave to file an amended complaint, pursuant to Rules 15(a) and 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF 44). This motion will also be denied for the same reason.
I. Standard for Post-Judgment Leave to Amend Complaint
A motion to amend a complaint filed after judgment has been entered is reviewed under the same standard applicable to a prejudgment motion to amend a complaint: bad faith, prejudice to the defendant, and futility. Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 427 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc). The only difference between the two, apart from timing, is that a post-judgment motion to amend may not be granted unless the judgment is vacated pursuant to either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Laber, 438 F.3d at 437. A meritorious post-judgment motion to amend may suffice for grounds to vacate a judgment under Rule 59(e). Katyle v. Penn National Gaming, 637 F.3d 462, 471 (4th Cir. 2011) ("To determine whether vacatur is warranted, ...the court need not concern itself with [Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b)'s] legal standards. The court need only ask whether the amendment should be granted" pursuant to Rule 15 standards).
The motion for leave to file an amended complaint is based upon plaintiffs request to add a party, Officer J. Lee. That individual, however, has been a defendant in the case since its inception.
Thus, granting leave to amend in this case would be futile. Accordingly, the motion to file an amendment to the complaint will be denied.
In accordance with the foregoing conclusion, it is hereby ORDERED, this 11th day of March, 2015, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland:
1, The motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF 44) IS DENIED; and
2. The Clerk SHALL SEND a copy of this order to plaintiff and counsel.