UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIE FRANK NELSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 CASE NO. 15-11075 

v. HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW 

JOHN HENRY WILSON, LARI ZEKA, 

ELENA SHORT, and LARRY WILLIAMS, 

 Defendants. 

_____________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 

(ECF Nos. 7 and 8) 

I. Introduction

 On March 20, 2015, plaintiff Willie Frank Nelson commenced this action by filing 

a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a state prisoner in 

Malone, New York. His complaint and the attached exhibits indicated that the 

defendants operated a fraudulent Michigan business that offered to provide legal 

assistance to prisoners who needed help with criminal appeals or other post-conviction 

matters. As a result of a federal prosecution related to the fraudulent business, two of the 

defendants (John Henry Wilson and Lari Zeka) pleaded guilty to criminal conduct in 

federal court. 

 Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that his mother paid the defendants $600.00, and 

when he sought a refund of the money, the defendants stopped communicating with him. 

2:15-cv-11075-AJT-RSW Doc # 9 Filed 12/08/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 81
Nelson v. Wilson, et al., No. 15‐11075

 2

Plaintiff claimed that the defendants intentionally deceived him by offering to provide 

him with legal assistance even though they were not licensed to do so. He sought money 

damages for alleged violations of his constitutional right to due process. Plaintiff also 

sought relief under the diversity-of-citizenship statute, and he attempted to hold the 

defendants responsible under criminal statutes and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 

Organizations Act (RICO). 

 On April 30, 2015, the Court summarily dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) and 1915A(b)(1), because it was frivolous and failed to state 

a plausible claim for which relief could be granted. The Court stated that Plaintiff’s § 

1983 claim failed to state a claim because the defendants were not state actors. The 

Court also determined that it lacked jurisdiction under the diversity-of-citizenship statute, 

because the actual amount in controversy was well below the statutory threshold for 

diversity actions. Finally, the Court stated that Plaintiff had no authority to prosecute the 

defendants or to sue them under RICO. 

 Now before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint and 

his amended motion to amend the complaint. In the first motion, Plaintiff points out that 

defendants Wilson and Zeka have pleaded guilty and that he is a victim of their 

fraudulent business. He asserts that he has a right to reclaim the $600.00 which he paid 

them. 

 In his amended motion for leave to amend the complaint, Plaintiff corrects 

typographical errors that he made in his initial motion to amend. The amended motion 

also adds an exhibit which consists of an order in a criminal case against Wilson and 

2:15-cv-11075-AJT-RSW Doc # 9 Filed 12/08/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 82
Nelson v. Wilson, et al., No. 15‐11075

 3

Zeka. The order overrules a magistrate judge’s ruling and grants the Government’s 

motion to disqualify counsel for Wilson. 

II. Discussion

 Ordinarily, the Court must grant leave to amend a pleading “when justice so 

requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Under this Rule, 

motions to amend are “frequently filed and, generally speaking, ‘freely’ 

allowed.” Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 612, 

615 (6th Cir. 2010). However, where a plaintiff seeks to amend his 

complaint after an adverse judgment, he must “meet the requirements for 

reopening a case established by Rules 59 or 60.” Id. at 616. 

Moncier v. Jones, 557 F. App’x 407, 410 (6th Cir. 2014). “A motion for leave to amend 

will be denied where there is “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the 

movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue 

prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and/or] futility 

of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

 Plaintiff filed his first motion to amend fourteen months after the Court dismissed 

his complaint, and he has not offered any explanation for his undue delay in seeking to 

amend his complaint. He also has not filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or a motion for relief from judgment under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. Instead, he filed his motions under Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 15 and 19. Rule 19 (“Required Joinder of Parties”) has no application 

here, and Rule 15 does not apply to motions filed after an adverse judgment; nor does it 

give parties the right to amend. Moncier, 557 F. App’x at 410. 

2:15-cv-11075-AJT-RSW Doc # 9 Filed 12/08/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 83
Nelson v. Wilson, et al., No. 15‐11075

 4

 Additionally, Plaintiff has not met the requirements for re-opening this case under 

Rules 59 and 60. Although Plaintiff apparently was the victim of the defendants’ 

fraudulent business, the fact remains that the defendants were not state officials, and their 

conduct was not “fairly attributable to the state.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 

U.S. 922, 937 (1982). As such, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under §1983, which 

requires showing that the plaintiff was deprived of a federal right by a person acting 

under color of law. Robertson v. Lucas, 753 F.3d 606, 614 (6th Cir. 2014). Furthermore, 

Plaintiff’s loss of $600.00 does not satisfy the threshold amount needed for diversity-ofcitizenship jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (stating that “[t]he district courts 

shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy 

exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between-- 

citizens of different States”). 

 Because Plaintiff’s allegations are frivolous and fail to state a plausible claim for 

which relief may be granted, it would be futile to file an amended complaint. The Court 

therefore denies Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 7) 

and his amended motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 8). 

 S/Arthur J. Tarnow 

 Arthur J. Tarnow 

 Senior United States District Judge 

Dated: December 8, 2016 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon parties/counsel of record 

on December 8, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 S/Catherine A. Pickles 

 Judicial Assistant 

2:15-cv-11075-AJT-RSW Doc # 9 Filed 12/08/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 84