Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-07008/USCOURTS-ca10-15-07008-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Suzanne McClain Atwood
Appellee
District Attorneys Council
Appellee
J. Doe
Appellee
Tanya Green
Appellee
Office of District Attorney for District No. 18
Appellee
Ilana Reinhardt
Appellant
Farley Ward
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT

ILANA REINHARDT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, EX 

REL., THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

COUNCIL, government of Oklahoma 

(administrative) agency; SUZANNE 

McCLAIN ATWOOD, individually and 

in her official capacity; OFFICE OF 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR 

DISTRICT NO. 18, government of 

Oklahoma agency; FARLEY WARD, 

individually and in his official capacity; 

TANYA GREEN, individually and in her 

official capacity; J. DOE, individually and 

in his or her official capacity,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-7008

(E.D. Oklahoma)

(D.C. No. 6:14-CV-00367-FHS)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously 

that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore ordered submitted 

without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under 

the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, 

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 

32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

August 17, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-7008 Document: 01019476365 Date Filed: 08/17/2015 Page: 1 
2 

Before, HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Plaintiff Ilana Reinhardt appeals the dismissal of her second amended complaint 

for failure to state a claim and the district court’s denial of her motion for leave to amend 

the complaint. We are not persuaded. 

 It is impossible to tell from the second amended complaint what misconduct was 

committed by what defendant. As fully explained in the opinion by the district court, 

even giving the complaint a generously liberal construction it wholly fails to comply with 

the requirements of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677‒79 (2009), or this circuit’s preIqbal standards, see Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008). And 

the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiff an opportunity to file yet 

another amended complaint when the motion seeking permission to do so failed to 

explain how the defects in the second amended complaint would be cured. 

 We AFFIRM the judgment below. 

 ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

 Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-7008 Document: 01019476365 Date Filed: 08/17/2015 Page: 2