Opinion ID: 2832723
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dismissal Without Permitting Amendment

Text: Finally, we consider whether the district court properly dismissed Mr. Brewer’s complaint without permitting him leave to amend. A “district court should allow a plaintiff an opportunity to cure technical errors or otherwise amend the complaint when doing so would yield a meritorious claim.” Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1278, 1284 (10th Cir. 2001). But the district court need not permit an opportunity to amend when “it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him an opportunity to amend.” Perkins v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court found Mr. Brewer’s complaint frivolous, dismissing it without granting him leave to amend. Brewer v. Gilroy, No. CIV 13-471-RAW-SPS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33393, at  (E.D. Okla. Mar. 18, 2015). Mr. Brewer did not provide necessary additional factual averments in his filings with the district court to make out plausible claims that any named defendants violated his constitutional rights. Specifically, Mr. Brewer’s three motions to amend failed to identify any allegations that would have cured the deficiencies in his complaint. See, e.g., Curley, 246 F.3d at 1284 (affirming a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a complaint for 23 failure to state a claim where the plaintiff failed to file a motion to reconsider explaining why the dismissal was erroneous). The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Mr. Brewer’s complaint without granting him leave to amend because Mr. Brewer’s proposed amendments would have been futile. See Anderson v. Suiters, 499 F.3d 1228, 1238 (10th Cir 2007) (“A proposed amendment is futile if the complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).