Unpublished Disposition Notice: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(C) States that Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Rochester Harris, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kent Jones (Implied Agency), Defendant-Appellee, the State of Michigan, Appellee., 909 F.2d 1483 (6th Cir. 1990)

Federal Circuits, 6th Cir. (August 02, 1990)

Docket number: 89-2250
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/37323890
Id. vLex: VLEX-37323890

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

Text:

Before MILBURN and RALPH B. GUY, Jr., Circuit Judges, and WILLIAM H. TIMBERS, Senior Circuit Judge.*

ORDER

Plaintiff appeals the denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) motion to amend a prior complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec . 1983. The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and the briefs, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

Plaintiff is a prisoner at the State Prison of Southern Michigan. In his original complaint filed February 25, 1988, plaintiff alleged that the defendant, an employee of the Department of Health and Human Services, improperly gave plaintiff's Social Security benefits to the prison to pay for prison expenses.

On September 14, 1988, the district court adopted a magistrate's report which recommended that the defendant's motion to dismiss be granted and the case dismissed. This court affirmed that ruling on other grounds. See Harris v. Jones, No. 88-1975, unpublished order at 2 (6th Cir. Feb. 21, 1989).

Subsequent to this court's ruling, plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint to add the State of Michigan as a defendant. The district court denied plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint because the original complaint had been dismissed and because that dismissal was affirmed by this court.

Upon review, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow plaintiff to amend his complaint to add the State of Michigan as a defendant. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330 (1971). Final judgment by this court precluded plaintiff from amending his complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). See Cooper v. Shumway, 780 F.2d 27, 29 (10th Cir.1985). An amendment would be futile because plaintiff's amended complaint alleged a cause of action which had been ruled factually and legally insufficient.

Accordingly, the district court's judgment is hereby affirmed. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

* The Honorable William H. Timbers, Senior Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation

Other documents:
Rashed Wali F. a/k/a Davis Curtis v Fulcomer Thomas A. Attorney General of State of Pennsylvania 941 F.2d 1202 3rd Cir 1991 | Jimmy Lee Walker Iii v. Norwest Corporation, 108 F.3d 158 (8th Cir. 1997) | Expropiacion forzosa. Resolucion de 15-12-1993, consejeria de industria y turismo por la que se convoca para el levantamiento de actas pre... | Expropiacion forzosa. Resolucion de 08-05-2007, jurado regional de valoraciones por la que se pr... | State v. Vondenhuevel (Ohio 2004) | EDICTO de 23 de marzo de 2004 por el que se hacen publicas resoluciones dictadas por la directora general de Rela... | los alcaldes de los pueblos afectados prometen «guerra» | Case of Tribunal Superior de Justicia Valladolid Castilla y Leon Sala de lo Social of June 22 2004 | Case of Audiencia Provincial Valencia Seccion 8 n 100/2007 of February 23 2007 | NOTIFICACION del Servicio Territorial de Agricultura y Ganaderia de Soria por la que se comun...