Hall v. Secretary for Department of Corrections , 219 F. App'x 868 ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 28, 2007
No. 06-11877 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-20323-CV-FAM
WENDALL JERMAINE HALL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(February 28, 2007)
Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Wendall Hall, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's
denial of his motion requesting leave to amend his complaint, and the district
court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim.
Hall argues that the district court erred in dismissing his motion to amend his
complaint. Hall claims that he was entitled to amend his complaint as a matter of
course, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), and Hall argues that leave should have been
freely given.
We review the denial of a motion to amend for abuse of discretion. Brown
v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1347 (11th Cir. 2004). We have held that a district
court must grant a prisoner’s motion for leave to amend his complaint after the
magistrate court has filed its recommendation, when such leave is required by
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15, before dismissing the complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1348 (11th Cir. 2004). Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)
states that “[a] party may amend the party’s pleading once as a matter of course at
any time before a responsive pleading is served.”
In the instant case, none of the defendants have submitted responsive
pleadings. Therefore, Hall was entitled to amend his complaint as a matter of
course, pursuant to Rule 15(a), and it was an abuse of discretion for the district
court not to grant Hall’s motion for such leave before dismissing Hall’s complaint.
2
Because Hall will be entitled on remand to amend his complaint and attempt
to satisfy the actual injury requirement discussed by the magistrate judge, we
decline to address actual injury at this stage. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,
349-53 & nn.2-3, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 2179-81 & nn.2-3 (1996); Wilson v.
Blankenship, 163 F.3d 1284, 1290-91 (11th Cir. 1998); Bass v. Singletary, 143
F.3d 1442, 1445 (11th Cir. 1998). After the amended complaint is filed, the
district court should address the actual injury issue in the first instance.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s denial of Hall’s motion to amend
and dismissal of Hall’s complaint and remand this case for further proceedings.
VACATE AND REMAND.
3