United States District Court, D. Maryland
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
dismissed Plaintiff's interlocutory appeal, conveying
jurisdiction back to this court regarding whether Plaintiff
Michael Osei should be granted leave to amend his
complaint.The court now rules on the briefs with no
hearing being deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the
following reasons, Plaintiff's motion for extension of
time to file proposed amended complaint and stay of
proceedings pending notice of interlocutory appeal, motion
for leave to exceed page length limitations in reply brief,
and motion to strike defendants' responses for waiver of
arguments and/or motion for reconsideration will be denied as
moot, but he will be provided an extension of time to supply
the court with a proposed amended complaint.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
remanded this case on February 6, 2018 for the court to
consider whether Plaintiff Michael Osei should be granted
leave to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 50). The court
convened a conference call with the parties on March 14, 2018
and entered a briefing schedule. (ECF No. 56). Plaintiff was
instructed that he must file a supplement to his motion for
leave to amend the complaint by March 23, 2018 or,
alternatively, notify the court of his decision not to
supplement by the same date. (Id.). Plaintiff filed
a supplement to his motion for leave to amend on March 26,
2018, requesting an additional sixty days to retain an
attorney who could assist him in preparing and filing the
proposed amended complaint. (ECF No. 61). Because Plaintiff
did not file a proposed amended complaint, the court was
unable to grant Plaintiff's motion. However, in a May 8,
2018 Order, the court provided Plaintiff “thirty days
to file a proposed amended complaint with the opportunity to
request an extension of time if Plaintiff provides the Court
with specific information about what efforts he has made to
retain an attorney and what factual allegations he wishes to
add with regard to what causes of action.” (ECF No. 66,
filed an interlocutory appeal (ECF No. 68) and a motion for
extension of time to file a proposed amended complaint and to
stay proceedings in this court pending his appeal on June 12,
2018. (ECF No. 69). His motion requests additional time to
file the motion for leave to amend and the proposed amended
complaint because he has not yet retained an attorney.
Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff's
motion for extension of time on June 28, 2018. (ECF No. 74).
Plaintiff filed a reply (ECF No. 75), a motion for leave to
exceed page length limitations in reply brief (ECF No. 76), a
supplement to his reply (ECF No. 77), and a supplement to his
motion for extension of time (ECF No. 78) on August 3, 2018.
Plaintiff filed a motion to strike defendants' responses
to his motion for extension of time and for reconsideration
on August 29, 2018. (ECF No. 80).
previously discussed in the court's May 8, 2018
Memorandum Opinion, “Local Rule 103.6 of the District
Court of Maryland requires that a party requesting leave to
amend provide a copy of the proposed amendment to the
court.” Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186,
197 (4th Cir. 2009). Local Rule 103.6 states:
“Whenever a party files a motion requesting leave to
file an amended pleading, the original of the proposed
amended pleading shall accompany the motion.” (D.Md.
2016). “By violating this Rule, the plaintiff fail[s]
to provide the district court with a means by which to
determine whether the amendment would cure the defects in the
initial complaint.” Francis, 588 F.3d at 197.
Despite continued direction from the court to do so,
Plaintiff has not filed a proposed amended complaint.
Defendants responded (ECF No. 74) to Plaintiff's motion
for extension of time (ECF No. 69), Plaintiff replied that
“[i]n addition to what Plaintiff's incoming
[a]ttorney would plead, Plaintiff intends to bring another
[d]efamation & [f]alse [l]ight cause of action against
defendants for falsely accusing Plaintiff” (ECF No. 75,
at 12). Plaintiff's discussion of proposed new
allegations in his reply is not a substitute for compliance
with Local Rule 103.6. See Davidson v. Sarnova,
Inc., No. CV JKB-17-1067, 2017 WL 5564654, at *6 (D.Md.
Nov. 20, 2017) (finding that Plaintiff must “file a
proper motion to amend her complaint that is accompanied by
the original of the proposed amended pleading” even
though “Plaintiff included her proposed new allegations
in her current motion”).
June 12, 2018 motion for extension of time requested an
additional period of 60 days to finalize his legal
representation and prepare his proposed amended complaint.
However, over six months have passed since Plaintiff filed
his motion for extension of time wherein Plaintiff had a
surplus of time to locate and begin working with an attorney.
Thus, the additional 60 days requested in his motion for
extension of time is deemed moot. Instead, out of continued
caution and taking into account the time consuming nature of
Plaintiff's recently dismissed interlocutory appeal,
Plaintiff is granted an additional final period of 30 days to
file a proposed amended complaint.
. . . the plaintiff fails to formally move to amend and fails
to provide the district court with any proposed amended
complaint or other indication of the amendments he wishes to
make, the district court does not abuse its discretion'
in declining to grant a motion to amend the complaint.”
Bock v. Florists' Transworld Delivery Inc., No.
CIV. WDQ-12-3702, 2013 WL 5276551, at *7 (D.Md. Sept. 16,
2013) (quoting Estrella v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
497 Fed. App'x 361, 362 (4th Cir. 2012)). As
Plaintiff was already warned, the resolution of this case
will not be delayed indefinitely due to Plaintiff's
procedural filibusters. Pursuant to the requirements of Local
Rule 103.6, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend will be
denied if Plaintiff fails to file his amended complaint
within 30 days.
foregoing reasons, the motion for extension of time to file
proposed amended complaint and stay of proceedings pending
notice of interlocutory appeal will be denied as moot.
Because Plaintiff's secondary motions for leave to exceed
page length limitations in reply brief (ECF No. 76) and
strike defendants' responses and/or for reconsideration
(ECF No. 80) are based on Plaintiff's original motion for
leave to amend, they are also denied as moot. A separate
order will follow.
 The Fourth Circuit granted
Plaintiff's motion voluntarily to dismiss his
interlocutory appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 42(b) ...