Glick v. Farm Credit Services of Mid America, FLCA et al, No. 5:2009cv02273 - Document 9 (N.D. Ohio 2010)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order denying plaintiff's motion to amend complaint. (Related Doc # 8 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 8/6/2010. (P,J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Glick v. Farm Credit Services of Mid America, FLCA et al Doc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION NATHAN GLICK, Plaintiff, v. FARM CREDIT SERVICES OF MID-AMERICA, FLCA, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:09CV02273 JUDGE SARA LIOI MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on a motion to amend the complaint filed by Plaintiff Nathan Glick. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED. I. Background Pro se plaintiff Nathan Glick filed this action under a slew of federal statutes essentially seeking to challenge the results of two state court foreclosure actions. The Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing the case based upon the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Younger abstention, and res judicata, (Doc. No. 6), and entered a judgment of dismissal. (Doc. No. 7.) In dismissing the case, the Court certified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal could not be taken in good faith. The same day of the dismissal entry (and in all likelihood before he received it in the mail), Glick filed a motion to amend the complaint. (Doc. No. 8.) The motion to amend does not attach a proposed amendment or describe what content Glick proposes to add. Indeed, the motion stands bereft of any substantive discussion, instead containing only boilerplate legal 1 Dockets.Justia.com jargon and requesting leave to amend “as a matter of justice.” Defendants did not respond to the motion to amend. II. Law and Analysis Leave to amend a complaint “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Court should deny leave “if the amendment is brought in bad faith, for dilatory purposes, results in undue delay or prejudice to the opposing party, or would be futile.” Crawford v. Roane, 53 F.3d 750, 753 (6th Cir. 1995). The court must have knowledge of the substance of the proposed amendment to determine whether “justice so requires,” and does not abuse its discretion by denying leave where the plaintiff fails to submit a proposed amended complaint or otherwise disclose what amendments he intended to make. Roskam Baking Co. v. Lanham Machinery Co., 288 F.3d 895, 906 (6th Cir. 2002). Glick’s motion to amend fails to supply either a proposed amended complaint or a description of the proposed amendments, leaving the Court without the requisite knowledge of the substance of the proposed amendment. The motion fails to allege any additional facts or further articulate the basis for the claims asserted in the complaint, and indeed contains no substantive discussion whatsoever. As a result, the Court has no basis for finding that the interests of justice would be served by granting leave. See id. And Glick’s pro se status does not relieve him of the obligation to provide the Court with the substance of the proposed amendment. See Williams v. Caruso, No. 2:08-CV-36, 2008 WL 3539759 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 12, 2008); Alspaugh v. McConnell, No. 2:06-cv-111, 2008 WL 1758936 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 14, 2008). Accordingly, Glick’s motion for leave to amend is denied. 2 III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the motion to amend the complaint is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 6, 2010 HONORABLE SARA LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
