Buck v. Brooks

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ESTELL WAYNE BUCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
BEVERLY BROOKS,
Defendant.
Civil Action 2:25-cv-641
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 33). Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 32)
on February 2, 2026, without first seeking leave of Court or obtaining Defendant’s consent, after
having already filed his First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) on August 14, 2025, as a matter
of course under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1). Thus, Plaintiff’s filing of the Second
Amended Complaint was not permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) or (2).
Striking the Second Amended Complaint is therefore appropriate.
Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing. The Scheduling Order provides that
“[m]otions or stipulations addressing the parties or pleadings, if any, must be filed on or before
March 6, 2026.” (ECF No. 29.) Thus, the Scheduling Order does not permit Plaintiff to file a an
amended pleading without first moving for leave of Court. Nor was Plaintiff permitted to amend
his pleading without leave of Court or Defendant’s consent under Rule 15(a)(1), because that
rule permits unilateral amendments only “once as matter of course.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).
Case: 2:25-cv-00641-MHW-CMV Doc #: 36 Filed: 03/26/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Plaintiff already availed himself of this Rule when he filed his First Amended Complaint on
August 14, 2025, without leave of Court or Defendant’s consent. He therefore cannot rely on this
rule to legitimize his unilateral pleading amendment a second time.
Finally, even if the Court were to liberally construe Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint (and his opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Strike) as a motion for leave to amend
his Complaint under Rule 15(a)(2), Plaintiff has not demonstrated that “justice . . . requires”
leave to amend. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Despite Plaintiff’s assertions, the Court can discern
no substantive difference between the allegations in the First and Second Amended Complaints.
Granting amendment, and requiring Defendant to respond to a redundant pleading, would
therefore contravene Rule 1’s admonishment that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “should
be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy,
and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
For these reasons, Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED. The Court
STRIKES Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 32) from the docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
CHELSEY M. VASCURA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 2:25-cv-00641-MHW-CMV Doc #: 36 Filed: 03/26/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>