Opinion ID: 223516
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Denial of Walker's Motion to Amend His Complaint

Text: Finally, Walker argues that the district court erred in denying Walker's motion for leave to amend his complaint. He contends that the court should have allowed him to plead additional facts showing that his claims should not be dismissed. For example, in his childhood sexual abuse charge, he sought to allege that the School District and Hetherington knew about Barrett's abusive conduct and allowed it to continue, thereby showing their liability under an accessory or ratification theory. In addition, Walker also sought to add an allegation that [t]he sexual abuse ... caused [Walker] to develop various psychological coping mechanisms that prevented him from know[ing] that he was a victim of sexual abuse. We typically review for abuse of discretion the district court's denial of leave to amend a complaint, but when the district court bases its denial on the futility of the proposed amendments, we review the underlying legal conclusions de novo. Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d 842, 850 (8th Cir.2010) (quotation and citation omitted). The district court did not err in denying as futile Walker's motion to amend. Walker argues that his amendments would have sufficiently established aider/abettor or ratification liability on the childhood sexual abuse claim for the School District and Hetherington. As explained supra, in Part II.C, however, Missouri Revised Statutes § 537.046 (governing claims for childhood sexual abuse) does not impose liability on nonperpetrator defendants. Moreover, as explained supra, in Part II. A.1, Walker's allegation of psychological coping mechanisms (presumably a reference to his argument that he had assimilated the abuse as something else) would not alter our conclusion that his injuries were capable of ascertainment at the time of the abusive conduct. Because none of the proposed amendments would have prevented Walker's claims from being dismissed (for failure to state a claim or for expiration of the statute of limitations), the district court did not err in refusing to allow them.