TUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALLEN DANIEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

BLAINE LAFLER, ET AL.,

Defendants. 

 /

Case No. 2:08-CV-13817

OPINION AND ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S PRO SE MOTION TO AMEND;

(2) STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S CORRESPONDENCE; (3) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF

COURT TO SEND PLAINTIFF A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT; AND 

(4) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE SERVICE COPIES

Plaintiff Allen Daniel filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. On September 25, 2008, the court issued an “Opinion and Order of Partial

Dismissal and Directing Plaintiff to Provide Additional Copies.” In this Order, the court

dismissed forty defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), because Plaintiff failed

to state a claim upon which relief could be granted with respect to those defendants and

directing Plaintiff to provide thirteen copies of the complaint so that service could be

effected on the remaining defendants. Now before the court is Plaintiff’s “Pro Se Motion

to Amend 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint; 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000 cc-1 et seq., 2000 dd-1(A-C),

et seq.” Plaintiff has also filed correspondence, attaching what appears to be his

attempt to comply with the requirement that he submit service copies of the complaint. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) permits a party to amend a pleading once

as a matter of course before being served with a responsive pleading or after serving

the pleading if a responsive pleading is not allowed. However, the Sixth Circuit Court of
1

 To the extent that Plaintiff also seeks to amend his complaint to add new

defendants and new claims, the court also denies his motion. Plaintiff’s motion is

confusing, and the court cannot clearly discern the specific defendants or additional

claims Plaintiff wishes to add by amendment. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)

requires that a complaint set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis supplied). Plaintiff’s

proposed amendments are confused and rambling, and fail to set forth a short and plain

statement of his claims. Thus, the proposed amendments fail to comply with Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

2

Appeals has held that Rule 15(a)’s liberal amended pleading standard does not apply to

complaints summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See Moniz v. Hines, 92

F. App’x 208, 212 (6th Cir. 2004). “[A] district court may not permit a plaintiff to amend

his complaint to defeat dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).” Id. Section 1915 “also

proscribes a district court from permitting a plaintiff to amend his complaint after that

court has dismissed the complaint under § 1915(e)(2).” Id. The ban on amending a

complaint after dismissal under § 1915(e)(2) applies without regard to whether the

amendment would cure the deficiencies in the original complaint. Id. at n.5. Plaintiff’s

amended complaint seeks to cure the deficiencies with respect to many of the

defendants summarily dismissed under § 1915(e)(2). Such an amendment is not

permitted.1

 Therefore, the court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend. 

Plaintiff has also submitted to the court, in three separate mailings, what appear

to be Plaintiff’s attempts to comply with the court’s Order requiring him to provide

service copies of the complaint. Plaintiff’s cover affidavit and one copy of the complaint

have been filed as Docket Entry Number Fourteen. These purported service copies,

however, are not duplicates of the original complaint. The original complaint is eight

pages long. The service copies provided are over forty pages long. In addition, many
3

pages of the service copies are either blank or illegible. Therefore, the court strikes

Plaintiff’s correspondence [Dkt. # 14] and finds that Plaintiff has yet to comply with the

court’s September 25, 2008 Opinion and Order. Plaintiff indicates in one of his

affidavits that he failed to retain a copy of the original complaint filed with the court. The

court, therefore, directs the Clerk of Court to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the original

complaint [Dkt. # 1] and to return Plaintiff’s purported service copies to him. The court

also directs Plaintiff to file thirteen copies of the original complaint within thirty days from

the date of this Order. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend [Dkt. # 10] is

DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s correspondence filed with the court on

November 7, 2008, [Dkt. # 14] is STRICKEN. 

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a copy of his original complaint

[Dkt. # 1] and to return to him the purported service copies of the complaint. Plaintiff is

ORDERED to file thirteen copies of the original complaint for service within thirty days

from the date of this Order. 

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 21, 2008
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\08-13817.DANIEL.deny amend reject copies.mbc.ljd.wpd

4

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, November 21, 2008, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522