United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
June 23, 2015
JERMARSH ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CHARLES A. SHAW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff has filed a post-dismissal amended complaint. Although plaintiff did not move for leave to file an amended complaint, the Court will construe the document as a motion for leave to amend for the purposes of this Order.
Although the Federal Rules have a liberal policy towards amendments, “[p]ost-dismissal motions to amend are disfavored, ” In re Medtronic, Inc., Sprint Fidelis Leads Products Liability Litigation, 623 F.3d 1200, 1208 (8th Cir. 2010), and amendments should not be granted when they would be frivolous or “futile, ” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
The allegations in plaintiff’s amended complaint do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. They are the same allegations as, or are substantially similar to, his original claims. As a result, the proposed amendments are futile.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to docket plaintiff’s amended complaint [ECF No. 7] as a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for leave to file an amended complaint is DENIED. [Doc. 7]