Opinion ID: 2827435
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cole’s Motion to Amend and Objections to RR

Text: Before the district court ruled, Cole pro se filed a motion to amend his complaint, objecting to its dismissal. Cole claimed that he mistakenly failed to disclose his prior federal lawsuit. Cole indicated that he misunderstood the § 1983 form complaint’s questions about his prior litigation history and stressed that he had never before sued a court clerk or prosecutor, which is why he answered “No.” On August 7, 2014, the district court adopted the R&R as its opinion and dismissed Cole’s § 1983 complaint with prejudice, pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The district court concluded that, although Cole wished to amend his complaint to list his prior lawsuit, his objections did not address the question of the defendants’ immunity. The district court also treated Cole’s § 1983 complaint as a suit for money damages and denied Cole’s motion to amend as “futile” based on the defendants’ immunity. Cole timely appealed. On January 14, 2015, a judge of this Court granted Cole leave to proceed in forma pauperis and appointed him counsel. 4 Case: 14-13861 Date Filed: 08/14/2015 Page: 5 of 9 II. Appointed Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw on Appeal On February 26, 2015, appointed counsel moved to withdraw, pointing out that, on June 9, 2014, Cole pled guilty to the state criminal charge at issue, firstdegree robbery. As a result, Cole was convicted and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment, with five years to serve. Cole also was convicted on a charge of third-degree robbery, and the sentence for that conviction was ordered to serve concurrently with the sentence for first-degree robbery. Appointed counsel argued that Cole’s appeal was therefore frivolous on grounds that (1) Cole’s attempt to seek release through a § 1983 action, instead of through a writ of habeas corpus, conflicts with Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S. Ct. 1827 (1973), and (2) his claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994). Cole opposed the motion to withdraw, indicating that he desired leave to amend his complaint and pointing out that he sought injunctive relief, not money damages. On April 22, 2015, a judge of this Court denied appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw. Appointed counsel then filed a merits brief. The main argument in that merits brief is that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), the district 5 Case: 14-13861 Date Filed: 08/14/2015 Page: 6 of 9 court should not have dismissed Cole’s § 1983 complaint with prejudice without allowing him the opportunity to amend. 2