LOPEZ v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
KAIJA FELLMAN LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:25-cv-00456-SDN
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
On November 12, 2025, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing Plaintiff
Kaija Fellman Lopez’s complaint in its entirety. ECF No. 6. Ms. Lopez timely objected and
moved in the alternative to amend her complaint to cure the deficiencies. ECF No. 7. This
Court construed her objection as a motion to amend the complaint and granted it. ECF
Nos. 8, 9. On February 4, 2026, Ms. Lopez filed her first amended complaint. ECF No. 10.
On February 10, 2026, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the first amended complaint and
again recommended dismissal. ECF No. 11. Ms. Lopez timely objected and alternatively
moved for leave to file a second amended complaint. ECF No. 12. She proposes to amend
the complaint to provide more dates supporting the alleged timeline of retaliation by
Defendants, to provide the substance of her complaints to Defendants, and to detail the
alleged adverse consequences she experienced from Defendants’ actions. See id. at 2.
Ms. Lopez has already filed one amended complaint as a matter of course. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). As such, she may file a second amended complaint “only with the
opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Rule
instructs the Court should “freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. Because the
Case 2:25-cv-00456-SDN Document 13 Filed 05/20/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Court determines the new factual allegations would change the analysis of the objection
to the underlying recommended decision, ECF No. 11, the Court determines the case
would be best served by allowing Ms. Lopez leave to amend the complaint for the second
time. Additionally, the Court determines Defendants would suffer no prejudice by the
filing of a second amended complaint because service has not yet been effected in this
case and an answer is not yet required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a); United Cannabis Patients
& Caregivers of Me. v. Me. Dep’t of Admin. & Fin. Servs., 535 F. Supp. 3d 46, 49 (D. Me.
2021) (granting leave to file second amended complaint where “judicial efficiency and
clarity” are served by amendment and it will “not unduly prejudice the Defendants”).
Accordingly, the Court construes Ms. Lopez’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommended decision as a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and
GRANTS said motion. However, the Court notes continued repeated failures to cure
deficiencies in the complaint will weigh against allowing future amendments and will
unduly prolong this case.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to file 14 days from today a Second Amended Complaint,
incorporating any additional factual information previously filed with ECF No. 12.
S O ORDERED.
Dated this 20th day of May, 2026.
/s/ Stacey D. Neumann
U NITED S TATES D ISTRICT J UDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00456-SDN Document 13 Filed 05/20/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>