United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
OPINION & ORDER
E. WIER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
moved “for leave to join [two] additional
parties[.]” DE #30 (Motion). Defendants opposed. DE #31
(Response). Plaintiff did not reply. See LR 7.1(c).
The matter is ripe for consideration.
March 21, 2018, Jacob Blevins sued Eastern Kentucky
University, Jacquelyn Pegram, and Bethanie Gamble. DE #1
(Complaint); see also DE #4 (Answer). The claims
generally arise from Blevins's unhappy experiences in,
and ultimate expulsion from, EKU's nursing program.
See generally DE #1. The parties are currently
litigating the case, and, under the applicable deadline,
see DE #24, Plaintiff timely moved to amend the
complaint. See DE #30. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks
to add as party-defendants Kristine Petrey and Connie
Hubbard. See DE #30, at 4. The motion cites no law
and fails to specify the particular claims Blevins wants to
make against Petrey and Hubbard. Plaintiff attached no
proposed Amended Complaint. Defendants oppose the generalized
amendment effort on substantive futility and procedural
grounds. See generally DE #31 & 6 n.1.
context, “a party may amend its pleading only with the
opposing party's written consent or the court's
leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Defendants oppose the
proposed amendment, so the question becomes whether justice
requires the Court to give leave.
in Rule 15 “is that the district court must be able to
determine whether ‘justice so requires,' and in
order to do this, the court must have before it the substance
of the proposed amendment.” Roskam Baking Co., Inc.
v. Lanham Mach. Co., Inc., 288 F.3d 895, 906-07 (6th
Cir. 2002) (citing Kostyu v. Ford Motor Co., 798
F.2d 1414, No. 85-1207, 1986 WL 16190, at *2 (6th Cir. July
28, 1986) (table), which affirmed the denial of a motion to
amend because the “plaintiff did not submit a proposed
amended complaint and failed to disclose what amendments he
intended to make”). Defendants explicitly seek motion
denial on this basis. DE #31, at 6 n.1. Plaintiff offers no
as he does not contest, presents the same problem as did
Dominguez, in Roskam, and Kostyu: he did not present
a proposed Amended Complaint, thereby preventing the
Court's review of “the substance of the proposed
amendment.” Roskam, 288 F.3d at 906;
Kostyu, 1986 WL 16190, at *2. Blevins did not even
engage in “a bare naming of [any] claim” he
desired to assert. See Roskam, 288 F.3d at 907.
Revealingly, Plaintiff's proposed order purports merely
to generally “add” Petrey and Hubbard “as
defendants, ” untethered to any particular claim.
See DE #30-1. Plaintiff presented no proof and
pleaded no facts; instead, he merely offered attorney
argument in briefing that broadly described the generic
nature of Blevins's beef with Petrey and Hubbard. This,
under clear Sixth Circuit precedent, is an inadequate
amendment effort. See Islamic Ctr. of Nashville v.
Tennessee, 872 F.3d 377, 387 n.7 (6th Cir. 2017)
(describing the “problem” with the lack of a
“proposed amendment” as being that “without
viewing the proposed amendment, it is
impossible for the district court to
determine whether leave to amend should have been
granted” (internal alterations removed) (emphasis
added) (citing cases)); see also Id. (rejecting the
notion that district courts should have to “engage in a
guessing game as to what the plaintiff might plead” in
this context (internal alteration removed)); Graham v.
Fearon, 721 Fed.Appx. 429, 439 (6th Cir. 2018)
(affirming denial of a “perfunctory” amendment
request); LaPine v. Savoie, No. 16-1893, 2017 WL
6764085, at *2 (6th Cir. Aug. 11, 2017) (“Because
LaPine did not provide the court with a copy of his proposed
amended complaint in his first two motions to amend, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying these
the Court DENIES DE #30.
 Intra-circuit district courts
regularly rely on Roskam and Kostyu and
deny motions to amend on this procedural ground. For but a
few examples, see Anders v. Shelby Cnty., No.
16-cv-2775-SHM-cgc, 2017 WL 4005453, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. Sept.
12, 2017); Bedford v. Abushmaies, No. 1:16-CV-1412,
2017 WL 3284879, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 2, 2017);
Lancaster v. United States, No. 6:16-175-DCR, 2017
WL 937950, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 9, 2017); Gilliam v.
Crowe, No. 3:16-cv-147, 2016 WL 3434026, at *3 (S.D.
Ohio June ...