IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
November 7, 2006
JOHN VIRGIL MCCUTCHEON, PLAINTIFF,
DONALD YOUNG, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is a proposed amended complaint submitted by plaintiff. Although plaintiff has not filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint as required, the Court will sua sponte consider the proposed amendments. Plaintiff has submitted a certificate of service indicating that defendant Young has been served with a copy of the proposed amended complaint, so the Court does not perceive any prejudice in taking up this matter despite plaintiff's procedural missteps.
Plaintiff apparently desires to sue only defendant Young, dropping all claims against all other defendants-- Bensko, Currie, McCann and Potts. Plaintiff also appears to want to expand on the current First Amendment retaliation claim, adding pendent state constitutional claims, and alleging the violation of a state statue. Without passing on the relative merit of the proposed additional claims, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), the Court will permit the proposed amendment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file plaintiff's amended complaint and have the record reflect that defendants Bensko, Currie, McCann and Potts are no longer defendants in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CLIFFORD J. PROUD U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.