UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BOBBIE J. CUNEGIN, #800536,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-10145

v. HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN

CITY OF YPSILANTI POLICE DEP’T,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Michigan prisoner Bobbie J. Cunegin (“Plaintiff”) filed a pro se civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting that he was subjected to excessive force

and denied medical care by police officers when arrested following a domestic dispute in

Ypsilanti, Michigan on February 12, 2013. He named the Ypsilanti Police Department as

the sole defendant, but did not make factual allegations against the department. He also

did not include a request for relief. Consequently, the Court dismissed the complaint for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as to the

named defendant and for failure to comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. The Court did not retain jurisdiction over the case.

The matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint. 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint adds John Doe police officers as defendants and seeks

injunctive relief and monetary damages. It also appears from Plaintiff’s pleadings that he

2:15-cv-10145-PDB-MKM Doc # 13 Filed 03/11/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 43
is no longer incarcerated and now resides in Romulus, Michigan.

Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint must be denied. First, Plaintiff has not

moved to re-open this case – and the case has already been closed. While a federal court

generally has discretion to allow amendment of a civil complaint, see Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a), such is not the case where, as here, the Court has already dismissed the complaint. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, once a judgment has been entered in a case,

the filing of an amendment is not allowed unless the judgment has been set aside or

vacated. See In re Ferro Corp. Derivative Litigation, 511 F.3d 611, 624 (6th Cir. 2008);

accord Griffey v. Lindsey, 345 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2003); Pitts v. Champion, 16 F.

App’x 975, 977 (10th Cir. 2001); Harris v. City of Auburn, 27 F.3d 1284, 1287 (7th Cir.

1994). No such action has occurred in this case. Moreover, the Court’s dismissal of

Plaintiff’s initial complaint was appropriate.

Second, while Plaintiff adds John Doe police officers as defendants and includes a

prayer for relief in his amended complaint, he still makes no factual allegations against

the Ypsilanti Police Department. Thus, his amended complaint still fails to state a claim

against one of the named defendants – the Ypsilanti Police Department.

Third, Plaintiff’s motion to amend, and his amended complaint, fail to comply with

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which requires that every pleading or

paper filed with the Court be signed by the submitting party or the attorney of record. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Plaintiff has not signed his motion to amend or his amended

2

2:15-cv-10145-PDB-MKM Doc # 13 Filed 03/11/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 44
complaint as required. Given such circumstances, Plaintiff’s motion to amend must be denied.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to amend his civil rights

complaint in this closed case. This denial (like the Court’s prior dismissal) is without

prejudice to the filing of a new civil rights action which states a claim against the

appropriate defendants and otherwise complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Should Plaintiff choose to file a new civil action, he must either pay the civil case filing

fee and administrative fee or submit a new application to proceed in forma pauperis (as a

non-prisoner). This case remains closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 11, 2015

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each

attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on March

11, 2015.

s/Deborah Tofil 

Case Manager

3

2:15-cv-10145-PDB-MKM Doc # 13 Filed 03/11/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 45