## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 05

- 1491 S TACIE F OSTE R, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. A NTH O NY D E L UCA an d C I T YOF C H I CA GO H EI GHTS, D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Di v isi on. No . 04 C5220

— SamuelD er-Yegh iayan, Judge

.
A RG UE D M AY 12, 2008

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 29, 2008

Befo re R OV NER, E VANS, a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judge. S taci e F ost erfi l ed sui t a gai nst the defendants cl ai m i ng tha t they v iola ted herFi rs t A m endm ent r i ghts by ter m i nati ng her be cause ofher po l i ti ca l a f fil i at i o n. The di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d the de f en dan ts ’ mot i o n t o di smi ss a nd t er m i na te d the c as e o n the sam e day, and l ate r denie d Fos ter ’ s m oti on t o am end her com pla i nt. Because the di str i ct c ourtf ai l ed to ar ti cul ate a r e a s o n f o r d e n y i n g F o s t e r ’ s m o t i o n t o a m e n d h e r c o mpla i nt, we re ver se.2 N o. 05

- 1491 I . B AC KGR OUND O n A u gu st 6, 20 04 , Fo st er , w h o is a D em oc ra t, filed su it ag ai ns t Antho ny De Luca, the R epu bl i ca n may o r o fthe Cityo fChica go H ei ghts, and the Cityi tse l f

. S he al l ege d a vi o l a t i o n o fh e r F i r s tAmen dme ntfr e e do m o fa s s o ci ati on r i ghts und er4 2 U .S

. C. § 1 983 because herem plo ym ent was t er m i nated a ft e rDe Luca was e l ecte d. On O cto ber 22, 20 04, the defe nd ants fi l ed a Rule 12( b) ( 6) m oti on t o dism i ss the c om p lai nt. On J anuary 6, 20 05, the dist ri ct co ur t g r an ted th e defen dan ts ’ mot i o n t o di smi ss a nd ter m i nated the cas e o n the sam e day. On J anuary 14 , 20 05, F o st erfi l ed a m o ti o n t o a l te r the di st r i ct co ur t’ s j udg m en t u n d er Fe d er al R u les of C ivil P ro c ed u re 59 (e) a n d 60 (b ), a m oti on f orl eave to fi l e a n am ended com pla i nt, and an am en d ed com p lai nt
. On Janu ary 27, 2005 , the d istri ct cou rt den i ed F o st er ’ s m o ti o n f o r l ea ve t o a m en d a nd m oti o ns to al terthe j ud gm ent i n a b ri efm i nute o rder

. Fo ste r appeal s.

II. A N A L Y S IS W e r evi ew a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni al o fa re ques t fo r l ea ve to a m en d f o r a n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n. Indi ana Fun e r al D i rs . Ins . Tru s tv. Tr us t m ark Ins . Corp. , 34 7 F
. 3d 652, 65 5 ( 7th Cir

. 20 03)
. Fe deralRule o fCi vi l P ro c edure 1 5( a) di ctat es that l eave to am end a pl eadi ng shal l be f re el y g i ven “ w hen j usti ce so re quir es, ” a nd the rul e e xpressl y g ra nts a pla i nti f f a n opportunity t o am end her com pla i nt “o nce as a m att ero fco urse bef or e b ein g ser ved w i th a re sponsi ve p lea d in g.” Fe d . R. C iv. P . 15(a ); Cam p v . G rego ry , 67F. 3d 1 2 8 6 , 1 2 8 9 ( 7 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 5 )
. H e r e , F o s t e r fi l e d h e r c o m-N o. 05

- 1491 3 pla i nt and the defe nd an ts r esp onded w i th a m oti on t o dism i ss p u rs uant to Rule 12 ( b) ( 6)
. Fo r pu rpos es of Rule 15( a) , a m ot ion t o dism i ss does not const i tute a re sp on siv e p lea d in g, see i d. ; thu s, “ ano r derdi smi ss i ng th e o r i g i na l c o m pl ai ntno r m al l y do es no t el i m i na te the p lain tiff’s righ t t o a m e n d on c e a s a m at te r of rig h t.” C restview Vill. A pa rtm e nts v . U nited Sta tes H U D , 383 F. 3d 55 2, 55 7 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ); C a m p , 67 F.3d at12 89 ; Wi l l he l m v. E aste rn A ir li nes, Inc. , 927 F.2d 971 , 972 (7th C ir. 1991). The dis tr i ct c ourtente re d fi nal j ud gm ent a gai nst F ost er at the s am e ti m e that i t g ra nted the m oti on t o dism i ss, so sh e los t h er righ t t o a m e n d h e r co m p lain t. See C a m p, 67 F. 3d at12 89 ( ci tingC arC ar r i e rs , Inc
. v. Fo r d M ot orCo. , 74 5 F. 2d 1101 , 11 11 (7th Ci r. 19 84) )
. Once fi nal j ud gm ent has been enter ed i n a c ase , “the di str i ct c ourtlac ks j uri sdic

t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n a mo t i o n f o r l e a v e t o a me n d th e c o mpl aintunl es s th e pl ai nt i f fa l so m oves fo r r el i effr o m the j ud gm ent. ” Id. a t1 2 8 9

- 9 0
. Aft e r the c a s e wa s te rm i na t e d, F o st erfi l ed the requi si te mot i o ns unde r Rul es 5 9( e) a nd 60( b) as wellas a m oti on f orl eave to fi l e a n am ended com p lai nt and the am en d ed com p laint

. Th e d istri ct cou rt const ru ed al l o fFo ste r’ s fi l i ngs a s a m oti on t o re consi der i t s e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n d i s mi s s i n g th e c a s e , w h i c h i ts u mmar i l y de ni e d. R eli ef un d er Ru les 59(e) and 60(b) are ex traord inary re m ed ies res er ve d for t h e e x c ep tio n al c as e, D i cke rs on v. Boa r d of Edu c at i on of F or d Heigh t s , I ll

. , 32 F. 3d 1114 , 11 16 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 4) , a nd “ th e m er e des i r e to e xpa nd the all egation s of a dism issed com p lai nt doe s not, by i tself, nor m al l y m er i t l i fti ng the j ud gm ent. ” C a mp , 67 F. 3d at4 N o. 05

- 1491 12 90 . Y e t t h e d ist ric t c ou rtleftth e p lain tiff w ith little re c ou rs e but to fi l e a m oti on under Rul es 59( e) and 60(b) because i t si m ult aneousl y g ra nted the defe nd ants’ m oti on to di smi ss a nd t er m i na te d the c as e. Di st r i ctc o ur ts r o uti nel y do not ter m i nate a case at the sam e ti m e t h at they gran t a d efend an t’s m otion to d ism iss; rath er, th ey gen eral l y di sm i ss the pl ai nti ff’s com pla i nt witho ut prej ud i ce an d g i ve the pl ai nt i f fa t l ea sto ne o ppo r tu nity to amend h er co m p lain t. See gen erally Fu rna ce v. B d. o f Trs., 218 F. 3d 666, 66 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( noti ng tha t “ w hi l e this c ou rt has not acco rded tal i sm ani c i m port ance t o the fac t that a com pla i nt .
. . was dis m i sse d ‘without prej ud i ce, ’ g e nera l l y, an o rderdi sm i ssi ng a com pla i nt witho ut prej ud i ce ‘ i s no t appeal abl e be cause the pl ai nti f fm ay file an am ended com p lai nt
. ’ ”) ( intern al ci tations and qu otations om itted ); see also K a pla n v . Shu re B ros. , 153 F.3d 413 , 417 (7th C ir. 1998 ) ( sam e); Fa rrandv. Lu t he r an Bhd. , 99 3 F
. 2d 1253 , 12 54 (7th C ir. 1993) (sam e). W hi l e “ the r i ght t o am end a s a m atter o fco urse i s no t abso l ute, ” a nd a dist ri ct c ourtm ay deny a m oti on t o amend “i fthe prop ose d a m en dm en t f ai l s to c ur e th e defi c i e nc i e s i n t he o r i g i na l p l e a di ng, o r c o ul d n o ts ur v i ve a seco nd m oti on to d i sm i ss, ” C re st view Vill. Apa rt m ent s , 38 3 F
. 3d at 55 8 ( ci tingPerkins v. Sil verst ei n , 93 9 F
. 2d 463, 471-72 (7th Cir. 1 991) (i nt erna l qu otations om itted )) , there i s no i nd i cati on that i s what hap pened in thi s ca se. Other th ani ts s um m ar y de ni alo fthe pl aintiff’ s m o ti o ns , the dist ri ct c ourtm ade no deter m i nati on r ega rdi ng the su ffici en cy o fthe a m en ded co m p la i ntno r di d i t pr o vi de an y ex p lan at ion for w h y it d en ied th e m ot ion to am en d

. See Air b or neBe epe rs & Vi de o, Inc . v. AT& T M ob i l i ty LLC, 49 9N o. 05

- 1491 5

The par t i es al s o br i efwhethe r the am en ded c om pl ai nt 1 w ould survive a R ule 12(b)( 6) m oti on, but the dist ri ctcourt never reac hed this i ss u e. W e decl ine to r es olve that i ss ue here as i ti s s om eth ing thatthe di s t ri c tc our ts houl d re vi s i ton r e m a nd

.

9- 29- 08 F. 3d 663, 66 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( “Reas on s f orfi nd i ng tha t l eave sho uld notbe gr anted i ncl ud e ‘ und ue delay , b ad fait h o r d ilat or y m ot ive o n t h e p ar t of th e m ov an t, repea ted fa ilure t o c u re deficien cies by a m end m ents p revio usly allo w ed, u n d u e p r ej u d i c e t o th e o p p o s i n g p a r t y b y v i r t u e o fa l l o wan ce o fthe a m en dm en t, fut i l i tyo fa m en dm en t. ’ ”) ( ci ting Fom an v. D avis , 37 1 U .S. 17 8, 18 2 (1 96 2)); D ub i cz v. Com m onweal t h Edi s on Co. , 377 F.3d 787, 792 (7th C ir. 2004) (sam e). This om i ssi on i s e speci al l y no tabl e g i ven the di str i ct cour t’ s a cti on i n dis m i ssi ng t h e ca se and enter i ng j ud gm en t o n th e sa m e day

. Acco r di ng l y , we fi nd th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t ab us ed i ts di screti o n b y de ny i ngthe pl ai nti f f’ s m o ti o n t o a m en d wi th o ute xpl an at i o n. 1

I I I . C ONC L US I ON A ccor dingl y, we R EV ERSE the deci si on ofthe dist ri ct c o ur ta nd R EMA ND this cas e f o r pr o ce edi ng s co ns i st en t w i th thi s o pini on. Ci rcui t Rul e 3 6 s hal l apply

.