United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
MICHAEL F. REESE, SR., Plaintiff,
KRONES, INC., Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. DUFFIN U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the court is plaintiff Michael F. Reese Sr.'s
“motion [for] the court to freely give leave to
amendment of original pleadings.” (ECF No. 46.) He
seeks to amend his amended complaint to add claims and
defendants. (ECF No. 46-6.) Reese's motion has
been fully briefed and is ready for resolution.
9, 2018, Reese, appearing pro se, filed this action against
defendants Mark Doolittle, John Barker, and Krones, Inc.,
alleging that they failed to make “reasonable
accommodations” for his known physical limitations in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
(ECF No. 1.) On October 5, 2018, Barker and Doolittle filed a
motion to dismiss Reese's claims against them (ECF No.
21), which the court granted on November 6, 2018. (ECF No.
26). Krones answered Reese's complaint on November 9,
2018. (ECF No. 27.) On December 10, 2018, the court issued a
scheduling order, setting forth, among other deadlines,
January 15, 2019, as the deadline to amend pleadings. (ECF
December 13, 2018, Reese filed an amended complaint, alleging
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
“28 § 1330(a), ” “28 § 1603(a),
” “28 § 1605(5), ” “EEOC Notice
915.002 Oct. 20th, 1993, ” and “EEOC Notice
915.002 Oct. 17, 2002.” (ECF No. 39.) Krones answered
Reese's amended complaint on January 1, 2019.
March 28, 2019, Reese filed a letter with the court titled,
“PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS FOR JUDGE WILLIAM DUFFIN”
(ECF No. 44), which the court construed as a motion to
further amend his complaint (ECF No. 45). Since the deadline
to amend pleadings had passed and Reese had not obtained
Krones' written consent or the court's leave, the
court denied Reese's motion to amend his complaint. (ECF
No. 45 at 2.) In denying Reese's motion, the court noted
that “the facts set forth in [Reese's] letter
do not support additional claims but rather appear
to supplement his already existing claim that Krones
allegedly failed to accommodate his disability.”
(Id.) (Emphasis in original.)
April 25, 2019, five days before the discovery deadline,
Reese filed the motion now before the court, once again
seeking permission to further amend his complaint. (ECF No.
46.) Although it's unclear, he appears to be seeking to
amend his amended complaint to allege claims of
“Failure to Reasonably Accommodate ADA Actual Injury,
” “Unsafe Workplace w/malice, ”
“Intentional Discrimination of ADA Disability w/malice,
” “Defamation of Professional Character w/malice,
” “Conspiracy to Punish and Terminate Me
w/malice, ” “Filing Blatantly, False Statement
w/malice, into my Personnel File, ” “Unequal
Treatment w/malice, ” “Gross Negligence, ”
and “Hate Crime” against Krones, Doolittle, and
Barker, and a claim of “Bad Faith w/malice”
against “Krones and their Workers Compensation Insurer,
Gallagher Bassett.” (ECF No. 46-6.)
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) allows a party to amend its
pleading “only with the opposing party's written
consent or the court's leave, ” and notes that
“[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Under the local rules
of this district, “[a]ny amendment to a pleading,
whether filed as a matter of course or upon a motion to
amend, must reproduce the entire pleading as amended, and may
not incorporate any prior pleading by reference.” Civ.
argues that Reese's motion “must be denied because
Mr. Reese's filing violates Civil L.R. 15(a), by
attempting to incorporate by reference some or all of the
pleadings that he previously filed with the Court …,
instead of filing a single proposed amended pleading as
required.” (ECF No. 47 at 2.) To comply with Civil
Local Rule 15(a), Reese was required to reproduce his entire
complaint (see, e.g., ECF No. 39) as amended.
attached six documents to his motion: (1) “Relation
Back of Amendment” dated April 9, 2019 (ECF No. 46-1);
(2) “Statement of Claim” dated December 7, 2018,
with added handwritten annotations (ECF No. 46-2); (3) a
letter to the EEOC dated May 16, 2018, with added handwritten
annotations (ECF No. 46-3); (4) “Prima Facie for
Failure to Accommodate a Disability” dated June 22,
2018, with added handwritten annotations (ECF No. 46-4); (5)
“Relief - Comprehensive / Punitive Damages.
Investigation of Conduct w/ ADA Guidelines” dated
December 7, 2018, with added handwritten annotations (ECF No.
46-5); and (6) “‘Pleadings as Amended'”
dated April 13, 2019 (ECF No. 46-6). However, none of those
documents include a reproduction of Reese's complaint
with the proposed changes he wishes to make by amendment.
Since Reese has failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 15(a),
the court will deny his motion.
Reese had complied with Civil Local Rule 15, the court would
still deny his motion to file a second amended complaint.
“[A] party seeking an amendment carries the burden of
proof in showing that no prejudice will result to the
non-moving party.” King v. Cooke, 26 F.3d 720,
724 (7th Cir. 1994). Factors that can influence the
interest-of-justice inquiry include “undue delay, bad
faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies, undue prejudice to the defendants, or where the
amendment would be futile.” Arreola v.
Godinez, 546 F.3d 788, 796 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962);
Thompson v. Ill. Dep't of Prof'l Regulation,
300 F.3d 750, 759 (7th Cir. 2002)). “[T]he decision to
grant or deny a motion to file an amended pleading is a
matter purely within the sound discretion of the district
court.” Brunt v. Serv. Employees Int'l
Union, 284 F.3d 715, 720 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing
J.D. Marshall Int'l Inc. v. Redstart, Inc., 935
F.2d 815, 819 (7th Cir. 1991)).
court finds that any party in the defendant's position
would be prejudiced by Reese's proposed amendments at
this stage of the litigation. Reese filed his motion four
months after the deadline for amending pleadings and five
days before the discovery deadline. He seeks to add several
new claims as well as a new defendant, Ghallagher Bassett,
allegedly Krones's workers compensation insurer. His
proposed amendments would completely change the nature of his
claim and substantially delay the resolution of this action.
It also appears that many of Reese's proposed amendments
fall outside the scope of his administrative charge ...