UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ANTHOINE PLUNKETT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 11-341 (RWR) ) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ) ) Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. Introduction. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s moti on for reconsideration of the Court’s Minute Order of October 14, 2011, which denied Plaintif f’s two earlier (and identical) motions to amend his complaint. The Court denied Plaintiff’s ea rlier two motions to amend because Plaintiff did not attach a proposed amended comp laint to either motion. To the extent that Plaintiff actually seeks reconsideration of the Court’s interloc utory minute order, his motion will be denied because Plaintiff has provided no reason why such reconsideration should be granted. To the extent that Plaintiff moves anew for leave to amend his complaint—this time, he has filed a proposed amended complaint—his motion will also be denied because Plaintiff does not need such leave; the Court will simply accept the proposed amended complaint for filing. II. Analysis. A. The Motion for Reconsideration Will Be Denied. On October 14, the Court denied Plaintiff’s tw o motions for leave to amend his complaint because he failed to attach a proposed amended co mplaint to either motion. Minute Order, Oct. 14, 2011; see Mot. to Amend Pleadings Pursuant to Ru le 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil-2- Procedure, ECF No. 13; Mot. to Amend Pleadings Pu rsuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ECF No. 15. Pl aintiff now moves for reconsider ation of that minute order. See Mot. for Reconsideration of Mot. to Amend Plead ings Pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ECF N o. 25 [hereinafter Mot.]. An interlocutory order such as the minute or der at issue “may be revised at any time before the entry of judgment adj udicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). “[R]elief upon reconsidera tion of an interlocutory decision pursuant to Rule 54(b) is available ‘as justice requires.’” Estate of Botvin ex rel. Ellis v. Islamic Republic of Iran , No. 05-cv-220, 2011 WL 1097450, at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2011) (quoting Childers v. Slater , 197 F.R.D. 185, 190 (D.D.C. 2000)). “‘As justice requires’ indicates concrete considerations of whether the court ‘has patently misunderst ood a party, has made a decision outside the adversarial issues pr esented to the [c]ourt by the part ies, has made an error not of reasoning, but of apprehension, or where a controlli ng or significant change in the law or facts [has occurred] since the submission of the issue to the court.’” Id. (quoting Cobell v. Norton , 224 F.R.D. 266, 272 (D.D.C.2004)) (altera tion in original). Therefore, “[i]n general, a court will grant a motion for reconsideration of an interloc utory order only when the movant demonstrates: ‘(1) an intervening change in the law; (2) th e discovery of new evidence not previously available; or (3) a clear error in the first order.’” Zeigler v. Potter , 555 F. Supp. 2d 126, 129 (quoting Keystone Tobacco Co., In c. v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 217 F.R.D. 235, 237 (D.D.C. 2003)). Plaintiff’s motion lacks any showing of a change in law, discovery of new evidence, or clear

error. See Mot. There is therefore no reason to recons ider the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s two earlier motions.-3- B. The Motion to Amend Will Be Denied; the Proposed Amended Complaint Will Be Accepted as Filed. It is clear from the content of Plaintiff’s current motion that he seeks more than reconsideration of the Court’s deni al of his two earlier motions for leave to amend: He also seeks such leave anew and has attached a proposed amended complaint to his motion. Mot. at 1 (“[M]oving this court for permission to amend th e original pleadings and complaint.”). This motion will be denied as moot because Plainti ff may amend his complaint once as a matter of course; the Court will simply accept the proposed amended complaint for filing. “A party may amend its pleading once as a ma tter of course with in: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleadi ng is one to which a responsive pl eading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Ru le 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “In all ot her cases a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave” and “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires. ” Fed. R.Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A complaint is a pleading to which a respons ive pleading is required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(2), 12(a)(1)(A). Therefore, under Rule 15(a)(1)(B), a party has an absolute right to amend its complaint at any time from the moment the complaint is filed un til 21 days after the earlier of the filing of a responsive pleading or a motion unde r Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). Villery v. District of Columbia , No. 10-cv-630, 2011 WL 5108511, at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 27, 2011). Defendant has only filed a motion for summary judgment; it has not yet file d an answer and or a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f). Plaintiff may th erefore amend his complaint once as a matter of course. The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s motion as moot and simply accept the amended complaint he attached to his motion for filing. The Court will also give Defendant an opportunity to supplement its summary judgment motion to address the complaint as amended.-4- Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration of Motion to Amend Pleadings Pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ECF No. 25, is DENIED ; it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court sha ll post as a new docket entry the amended complaint, which is currentl y filed at ECF No. 25-1; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant shall file any supplement to its pending motion for summary judgment a ddressing the complaint amended on or before January 18, 2012. SO ORDERED this 20th day of December, 2011. /s/ RICHARD W. ROBERTS United States District Judge