1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALI SALAAM EL, Case No. 09-12136

Plaintiff, David M. Lawson

vs. United States District Judge

CITY OF DEARBORN, DEARBORN Michael Hluchaniuk

POLICE, 19th DISTRICT COURT, United States Magistrate Judge

ALFRED GRZEGOREK #435,WILLIAM 

C. HULTGREN, SCOTT NAGY, 

WILLIAM M. DEBIASI, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

STRIKE AMENDED COMPLAINT (Dkt. 16)

Plaintiff filed this civil rights action on June 3, 2009. (Dkt. 1). This matter

was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial purposes by District Judge David M.

Lawson. (Dkt. 2). Two defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 7, 2009. 

(Dkt. 3). Two other defendants filed an answer to the complaint on July 8, 2009,

along with a motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 6, 8). On August 3, 2009, plaintiff filed an

amended complaint, along with a response to the first motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 11). 

On August 19, 2009, two defendants filed a motion to strike the amended

complaint. (Dkt. 16). The Court ordered plaintiff to respond to the motion to

2:09-cv-12136-DML-MJH Doc # 22 Filed 10/28/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 165
2

strike by September 10, 2009. (Dkt. 18). Plaintiff has not filed any response to the

motion to strike.

Defendants point out that, under Rule 15(a), a plaintiff may amend the

complaint once as a matter of course, if no responsive pleading has yet been

served. If a responsive pleading has been served, a plaintiff must move for leave to

amend the complaint. Here, a responsive pleading (the answer filed on July 8,

2009) was filed before plaintiff submitted his amended complaint on August 3,

2009. Plaintiff did not move for leave to amend his complaint. While plaintiff

filed a brief in support of his amended complaint, nothing in that pleading

addresses Rule 15 or standards applicable to a motion for leave to amend. Further,

plaintiff failed to file a response, despite being ordered to do so, to defendants’

motion to strike. That order to respond cautioned plaintiff that “[f]ailure to file a

response may result in sanctions, including granting all or part of the relief

requested by the moving party.” (Dkt. 18, emphasis in original). 

Based on plaintiff’s failure to move for leave to amend his complaint and

plaintiff’s failure to respond to defendants’ motion, the motion to strike is

GRANTED. Plaintiff’s submission, Dkt. 11, is stricken to the extent it purports to

be an amended complaint, but, to the extent that it is a response to a motion to

dismiss, it will not be stricken.

2:09-cv-12136-DML-MJH Doc # 22 Filed 10/28/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 166
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Order, but are

required to file any objections within 10 days of service as provided for in 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.1(d)(2). A party may not assign as error any

defect in this Order to which timely objection was not made. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). 

Any objections are required to specify the part of the Order to which the party

objects and state the basis of the objection. Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(d)(2),

objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge.

Date: October 28, 2009 s/Michael Hluchaniuk 

Michael Hluchaniuk

United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on October 28, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing paper

with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send electronic

notification to: Laurie M. Ellerbrake and John G. Fedynsky, and I certify that I

have mailed by United States Postal Service the paper to the following non-ECF

participant: Ali Salaam El, P.O. Box 35562, Detroit, MI 48235.

s/James P. Peltier 

Courtroom Deputy Clerk

U.S. District Court

600 Church Street

Flint, MI 48502

(810) 341-7850

pete_peltier@mied.uscourts.gov

2:09-cv-12136-DML-MJH Doc # 22 Filed 10/28/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 167