Order Denying Motion to Amend Complaint — Changizi v. HHS

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division · No. 2:22-cv-01776-EAS-CMV · Doc. 41 · 2022-06-20 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
 
 
  
MARK CHANGIZI, et al.,  
 
 
 
 
       Case No. 2:22-cv-1776 
 
 
Plaintiffs, 
 
 
       JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. 
 
 
 
 
 
                   Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura 
 
v.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
        
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al. 
 
 
 
Defendants.  
 
ORDER 
 
This matter arises on Plaintiff Mark Changizi, Daniel Kotzin, and Michael Senger’s 
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Motion to File an Amended Complaint (the “Motion to Amend”). (ECF 
No. 40.)  
On May 5, 2022, this Court, among other things, dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack 
of subject-matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can 
be granted. (Op. & Order, ECF No. 37.) More than a month has passed since then. Plaintiffs now 
seek to amend their initial complaint by adding: (1) a new plaintiff; (2) several new defendants 
(including the President of the United States); and (3) additional information “which Plaintiffs did 
not know and could not have known when the original complaint was filed.” (ECF No. 40.) 
“Following entry of final judgment, a party may not seek to amend their complaint without 
first moving to alter, set aside or vacate judgment pursuant to either Rule 59 or Rule 60 of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” In re Ferro Corp. Derivative Litig., 511 F.3d 611, 624 (6th Cir. 
2008) (quoting Morse v. McWhorter, 290 F.3d 795, 799 (6th Cir. 2002)). As more than twenty-
eight days have passed since this Court’s entry of final judgment, Plaintiffs may no longer avail 
Case: 2:22-cv-01776-EAS-CMV Doc #: 41 Filed: 06/20/22 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: 644

2 
 
themselves of Rule 59. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). They are, however, free to move for relief under 
Rule 60. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (requiring a motion for relief from a final judgment, order, 
or proceeding to be filed “within a reasonable time”). Only after prevailing on such a motion would 
Plaintiffs be able to amend their complaint.  
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (ECF 
No. 40.) 
This case shall remain closed. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
6/20/2022 
 
 
 
 
s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. 
 
 
 
DATE  
 
 
 
 
EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 
Case: 2:22-cv-01776-EAS-CMV Doc #: 41 Filed: 06/20/22 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: 645

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ohsd.267163.41.0.pdf

Size

177,582 bytes

SHA-256

f60670728f966fa7a88505c9e6eb75532a70013316d856263dcf5545f27d18c4

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ohsd.267163.41.0.pdf

Original

archive.org