Opinion ID: 784093
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Amending the Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Text: 33 Both pre-trial and post-trial, Wheeler moved to amend his complaint to add appropriate injunctive relief. Post-trial, Wheeler also moved to include a prayer for declaratory relief. The district court denied these motions. 34 We review the district court's denial of leave to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion. Mouser v. Caterpillar, Inc., 336 F.3d 656, 666 (8th Cir.2003). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate that amendments to pleadings should be allowed with liberality where necessary to bring about the furtherance of justice and where the adverse party will not be prejudiced. Corsica Livestock Sales, Inc. v. Sumitomo Bank, 726 F.2d 374, 377 (8th Cir.1983). However, the decision to allow or deny an amendment is a discretionary matter for the district court to resolve. McLaurin v. Prater, 30 F.3d 982, 985 (8th Cir.1994). 35 We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Wheeler's motion to amend the complaint. Wheeler makes little argument that the district court abused its discretion other than to state that such relief would [have been] appropriate and that the district court fail[ed] to explain a reason to not grant the relief. This is not accurate. The district court did, in fact, explain that the requested amendment was untimely filed and unduly prejudicial, and not supported by the evidence at trial and the applicable case law. Since Wheeler points to no abuse of discretion by the district court, and we find none, we affirm on this issue.