Opinion ID: 152892
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to File Second Amended Complaint

Text: Nelson also argues that the district court should have granted his motion to file a second amended complaint.4 The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Nelson’s motion because it properly concluded Nelson’s proposed second amendment would have been futile. Nelson’s proposed second amended complaint contained no new claims for relief, merely restated the relevant facts as to the claims presented in Nelson’s first amended complaint, and reiterated the legal arguments he already had presented in his motion for summary judgment. As such, the proposed second amended complaint contained nothing that would have altered the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the United States. See Sibley v. Lando, 437 F.3d 1067, 1074 (11th Cir. 2005) (concluding that proposed amended complaint, which added a transcript, would not change the fact that defendant was immune from suit, and thus amendment would be futile). And Nelson had already been given the opportunity to amend his 4 This Court “review[s] the denial of a motion to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion. The underlying legal conclusion of whether a particular amendment to the complaint would have been futile is review de novo.” Corsello v. Lincare, Inc., 428 F.3d 1008, 1012 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). 6 original complaint once.