IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-30316

MALACHI S. HULL, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:15-CV-793

Before WIENER, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Malachi Hull brought a complaint against the City of New Orleans (“the 

City”), asserting claims of disparate treatment, retaliation, and hostile work 

environment. On January 4, 2016, the district court granted the City’s motion 

to dismiss the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim, allowing 

Hull to file an amended complaint within twenty days. The twenty-day 

deadline passed without Hull filing an amended complaint. On January 26, 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 6, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-30316 Document: 00513785332 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2016
No. 16-30316

2

2016, the district court entered judgment dismissing the complaint with 

prejudice. 

Two days later, Hull filed a motion for leave to file an amended

complaint. His only contention as to good cause for the belated submission was 

that his attorney “failed to notice” the district court’s January 4, 2016 dismissal 

of his original complaint and deadline to file an amended complaint. On March 

8, 2016, the district court denied Hull’s motion for leave, holding that Hull 

failed to establish good cause and that the proposed amendment would be 

futile.

Hull appeals the district court’s March 8, 2016 denial of his motion for 

leave to file an amended complaint.1 “[A] party seeking to amend its pleadings 

after a deadline has passed must demonstrate good cause for needing an 

extension.” E.E.O.C. v. Serv. Temps Inc., 679 F.3d 323, 333-34 (5th Cir. 2012).

We review the district court’s denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion. 

Id. at 333. 

Hull’s arguments on appeal focus not on the purported good cause for his 

motion for leave but the sufficiency of his proposed amended complaint. His

brief is devoid of any argument that would show good cause existed for the 

untimely proposed amendment. Hull has not demonstrated that the district 

court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 

1 Hull did not appeal the district court’s January 26, 2016 judgment dismissing his 

original complaint with prejudice within thirty days—only the subsequent denial of his 

motion for leave to file an amended complaint. If Hull’s motion for leave were construed as a 

Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment, then his appeal of that judgment would 

be timely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv). But “Rule 59(e) requires that a motion call into 

question the correctness of the judgment . . . .” N. Alamo Water Supply Corp. v. City of San 

Juan, 90 F.3d 910, 918 (5th Cir. 1996). Hull’s motion for leave did not call into question the 

correctness of the judgment; it only asked for more time to file an amended complaint.

 Case: 16-30316 Document: 00513785332 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2016