United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER APPOINTING
KAYS, CHIEF JUDGE.
case arises out of the denial or termination of a housing
voucher. Pro Se Plaintiff, who states he has mental health
and cognition problems, is suing the Housing Director of the
Missouri Department of Mental Health and an administrator on
the basis of race, gender, and disability discrimination.
before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider the
Court's order denying him appointed counsel (Doc. 22).
Contemporaneous to his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff
filed a “Refiling Support Civil Claim” (Doc. 23)
which the Court construes as a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint. For the reasons stated below,
Plaintiff's Motion for leave to file an amended complaint
is GRANTED and the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
is homeless and suffers from ongoing mental and physical
issues that require frequent hospitalization. Acting pro se,
Plaintiff filed suit in this Court requesting a housing
voucher, damages for medical expenses and emotional distress,
and punitive damages. The Court granted Plaintiff's
request to proceed in forma pauperis. On January 11, 2017,
the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel in
this case because the Court found the Complaint
“lack[ed] an arguable basis in fact or law” and
did not state facts describing what happened, when it
happened, or how the Defendants were involved (Doc. 16).
The Court construes Plaintiff's “Refiling Support
Civil Claim” as a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint and an amended complaint.
April 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of
Refiling” that alleges facts related to discrimination
and retaliation claims under the Fair Housing Act
(“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et
seq. and the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et
seq. In construing Plaintiff's pleading liberally,
the Court considers the Notice of Refiling as containing a
request to amend his Complaint.
the time has passed to amend as a matter of course, “a
party may amend its pleading only with the opposing
party's written consent or the court's leave.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). “The court should freely give leave
when justice so requires.” Id.
should consider the following factors in determining whether
leave to amend should be granted: (1) whether the motion was
filed in bad faith or with dilatory motive; (2) whether the
motion was filed with undue delay; (3) whether leave to amend
would be unduly prejudicial to the opposing parties; and (4)
whether the proposed amendment would be futile. See Bell
v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 160 F.3d 452, 454 (8th Cir.
Plaintiff's handwritten filing contains facts associated
with the loss of his housing voucher including when it
happened, how he has suffered and how Defendants were
involved. The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's
Refiling and liberally construes it as both a motion for
leave to file an amended complaint and an amended complaint.
See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)
(finding a document filed pro se is “to be liberally
the above factors, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion
for leave to file an amended complaint. First, the Court
finds Plaintiff did not file this Amended Complaint in bad
faith or with undue delay because this document is likely in
response to the Court's order denying him appointed
counsel where the Court stated his Complaint did not allege
sufficient facts. Second, this Amended Complaint would not be
unduly prejudicial to Defendants because it more cogently
states a claim for which Plaintiff seeks relief. Finally, in
reviewing the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint, the
Court finds granting Plaintiff's motion would not be
general, “an amended complaint supercedes an original
complaint and renders the original complaint without legal
effect.” In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d
1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000). However, construed liberally, the
Court assumes Plaintiff intends the Amended Complaint to
supplement the original Complaint. See, e.g.,
Ford v. Donovan, 891 F.Supp.2d 60, 62 (D.D.C. 2012)
(“Instead of superceding his original Complaint, as a
typical Amended Complaint does, this later pleading
supplements it. Given his pro se status, the Court
will treat the combined pleadings as one joint
Complaint.”). Therefore, the pleadings should be
considered together. See Williams v. Aldridge, No.
6:13-CV-6004, 2014 WL 504874, at *2 (W.D. Ark. Feb. 7, 2014)
(construing together pro se plaintiff's complaint and
Plaintiff's motion for ...