Court Opinion

ID: 9384377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-03 18:01:16.046755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:52.722322
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10244       Document: 00516698066             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/03/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 22-10244
                                Consolidated with                                   FILED
                                    No. 22-10718                                 April 3, 2023
                                  Summary Calendar                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                    Clerk

   Shanelle Jenkins, as surviving spouse, and
   Representative of the Estate of Robert Geron Miller,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                           versus

   Tarrant County Sheriff's Office; Bill E. Waybourn, in
   his official capacity as Sheriff of Tarrant County,
   Texas; Tarrant County; Texas Department of Public
   Safety, Texas Rangers Division,

                                                                Defendants—Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:21-CV-910

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*

          *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set
   forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-10244         Document: 00516698066       Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/03/2023

                                    No. 22-10244

          Plaintiff Shanelle Jenkins’s husband unexpectedly passed away while
   he was in the Tarrant County jail.        Jenkins brought suit against the
   defendants—Tarrant County, the Tarrant County Sheriff’s Office, Bill
   Waybourn in his official capacity as sheriff of Tarrant County, and the Texas
   Rangers Division of the Texas Department of Public Safety—on his behalf.
   Although her complaint admitted that she did not know the cause of, or
   circumstances surrounding, her husband’s death, she nevertheless asserted
   claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for “wrongful death,” “excessive force,”
   “inadequate training,” and for an “official policy or custom,”as well as a few
   state law claims.
          The defendants moved to dismiss, and the district court warned
   Jenkins twice that her pleadings were “threadbare recitals of a cause of
   action’s elements, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v.
   Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1940 (2009). Jenkins amended her
   complaint, but the changes merely added a new defendant and did nothing to
   remedy the problems. The defendants again moved to dismiss. Jenkins’s
   response asked for leave to amend her complaint a second time, promising
   that this time she would rectify the deficiency.
          The district court dismissed Jenkins’s federal claims with prejudice
   and, also declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining
   state law claims, dismissed the state law claims without prejudice. The court
   refused to allow Jenkins to amend the complaint a second time. Jenkins does
   not contest most of these findings; she only appeals the district court’s
   refusal to allow her to amend her complaint for a second time.
          We affirm essentially for the reasons stated in the comprehensive and
   thorough district court opinion. “Except as authorized by the first sentence
   of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) for one amendment before service of a responsive
   pleading, a complaint may be amended only by leave of the district court, and,

                                         2
Case: 22-10244      Document: 00516698066           Page: 3     Date Filed: 04/03/2023

                                     No. 22-10244

   while such leave is to be freely given when justice so requires, the decision is
   left to the sound discretion of the district court and will only be reversed on
   appeal when that discretion has been abused.” U.S. ex rel. Willard v. Humana
   Health Plan of Texas Inc., 336 F.3d 375, 387 (5th Cir. 2003). The district court
   did not abuse its discretion. It concluded that allowing further amendment
   would be futile and cause undue delay, two justifications that this court has
   previously identified as “[p]ermissible reasons for denying a motion for leave
   to amend.” Cent. Laborers' Pension Fund v. Integrated Elec. Servs. Inc.,
   497 F.3d 546, 556 (5th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). The district court gave
   the plaintiff ample warning and time to fill out her threadbare complaint.
   After Jenkins failed to resolve the problem in a timely fashion, the district
   court could permissibly find that allowing further amendments was
   unwarranted. Moreover, the district court also justifiably denied the request
   to amend because it did not include the proposed second amended complaint,
   thereby violating the district court’s local rules. See N.D. Tex. L. Civ. R. 15.1.
          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                           3