GBEMEH v. ARE TELECOMMUNICATIONS LLC et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
SHEKKU ABU-BAKAR GBEMEH,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CASE NO:
7:25-cv-94–WLS
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant C.U. Employment, Inc.’s Motion for Partial
Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 19) (“Motion for Partial Judgment”). On February 18, 2026,
pro se Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 28).1 Normally, upon the filing of an
amended complaint, pending motions with respect to the original complaint become moot.
However, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, as filed, is improper under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure as he was required to first request leave to file such amendment.2 See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his pleadings are liberally construed. Tannenbaum
v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). However, liberal
construction of pro se filings does not require courts to ignore the Rules; “a party who proceeds
pro se must comply with the same procedural rules that other litigants must follow.” Diaz v.
AT&T Mobility, No. 1:10-CV-3356, 2013 WL 12098747, at *3-4 (N.D. Ga. July 19, 2013),
adopted by, 2013 WL 12097948 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 9, 2013). As he is filing pro se, Plaintiff will be
1 The amended complaint was initially filed on February 17, 2026. However, due to a deficiency in the filing, it
was refiled on February 18, 2026. (See Docs. 27, 28).
2 Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his pleadings are liberally construed. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d
1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). However, liberal construction of pro se filings does not require courts
to ignore the Rules; “a party who proceeds pro se must comply with the same procedural rules that other litigants
must follow.” Diaz v. AT&T Mobility, No. 1:10-CV-3356, 2013 WL 12098747, at *3-4 (N.D. Ga. July 19, 2013),
adopted by, 2013 WL 12097948 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 9, 2013).
Case 7:25-cv-00094-WLS Document 30 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 2

2
given an opportunity to make the appropriate filing requesting leave to amend and showing
good cause for leave to amend his complaint.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days after entry of this Order, or until close of
business on Monday, March 9, 2026, within which to properly move for amendment for
good cause;
2. 	Because Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 28) is filed in violation of
the Rules, it is DISMISSED, sua sponte, WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
3. 	Consideration of Defendant C.U. Employment, Inc.’s Motion for Partial
Judgment (Doc. 19) will be held in ABEYANCE, pending Plaintiff properly filing a motion
to amend;
4. 	If Plaintiff fails to properly file such motion to amend, then no later than close
of business on Monday, March 9, 2026, Plaintiff may file his response to the Motion for
Partial Judgment; and
5. 	Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Order may result in the Court granting the
pending Motion for Partial Judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1).
SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of February 2026
/s/W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 7:25-cv-00094-WLS Document 30 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 2