Opinion ID: 2982742
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sixth Amended Complaint

Text: Woodson renewed his motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity in response to the fifth amended complaint. Libretti again asserted an absolute right to amend his complaint. The district court did not provide a reason for denying the sixth motion to amend, but that does not amount to an abuse of discretion “[w]hen the reasons for denying a motion to amend are readily apparent.” Mellentine v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 515 F. App’x 419, 425 (6th Cir. 2013). Libretti had ample opportunity with the fifth amended complaint to fix any deficiencies that 12 No. 14-3266 remained in his pleadings. Under these circumstances, where a dispositive motion was pending and Libretti had repeatedly attempted to make futile amendments, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave.