STROUD
v.
JACOBS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The District Court for the Northern District of Florida denied a prisoner's motion for leave to file a sixth amended complaint that would add Sergeant McMillan as a defendant. The court found that the proposed amendment failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under the standards established in Farmer v. Brennan.
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, finding that the proposed sixth amended complaint did not state a claim against Sergeant McMillan upon which relief could be granted under the standards for correctional officer liability established in Farmer v. Brennan.
“At least as now framed, the sixth amended complaint does not state a claim against Sgt. McMillan on which relief can be granted.”
The court's primary reason for denying the motion to amend—the proposed complaint fails to satisfy pleading requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Stroud filed suit against Colonel Jacobs and other defendants. Stroud sought to file a sixth amended complaint that would add Sergeant McMil…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 107. No objections have been filed. The recommendation is to deny leave to file the proffered sixth amended complaint, which would add a new defendant, Sgt. McMillan. At least as now framed, the sixth amended complaint does not state a claim against Sgt. McMillan on which relief can be granted. See, e.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (setting out the standards governing a claim that a correctional officer failed to protect a prisoner from an assault by another prisoner). As a matter of discretion, this order denies leave to amend. IT IS ORDERED:
1. The report and recommendation is accepted.
2. The plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, ECF No. 98, is denied. 3. The case is remanded to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED on June 4, 2025. s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge