Letts v. Five Rivers Metroparks et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
WILLIAM J. LETTS,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 3:25-cv-285
vs.
FIVE RIVERS METROPARKS, 	District Judge Michael J. Newman
et al., 	Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. No. 12); (2) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO DOCKET
HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT; (3) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO
ACCEPT PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT ONCE FILED; (4) DENYING AS
MOOT DEFENDANT HOLLAND’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 5); AND (5)
DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS ADKINS, FIVE RIVERS METROPARKS, AND
FRITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 8)
______________________________________________________________________________
This is a civil case in which Plaintiff William J. Letts, pro se,1 alleges constitutional and
civil rights violations against Defendants Emily Holland, David Adkins, Five Rivers Metroparks,
and Jeremy Fritz. Doc. No. 1. Currently pending before the Court is Defendant Holland’s motion
to dismiss (Doc. No. 5), as well as Defendants Adkins, Five Rivers Metroparks, and Fritz’s motion
to dismiss (Doc. No. 8). Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint (Doc. No. 12),
to which Defendants filed responses (Doc. Nos. 12, 14). Plaintiff also filed a response opposing
both motions to dismiss, though it was labeled as only addressing Defendants Adkins, Five Rivers
Metroparks, and Fritz’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 15). Defendants filed a reply. Doc. No. 16.
The Court has carefully considered all of the foregoing, and the motions are now ripe for decision.
1 As with all pro se litigants, Plaintiff’s documents and allegations are liberally construed in his favor. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).
Case: 3:25-cv-00285-MJN-PBS Doc #: 17 Filed: 03/11/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Leave to amend must be “freely” given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
The Court notes that some pages of Plaintiff’s complaint are currently scanned improperly and
therefore not legible for consideration. See Doc. No. 1. Therefore, in light of Plaintiff’s motion
to file an amended complaint, and after review of the complete record in this case, the Court
GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff is directed to docket his amended complaint, taking care to
ensure the entire complaint is completely legible for the Court. Thereafter, the Court DIRECTS
the Clerk of Court to accept Plaintiff’s first amended complaint as filed, so long as all pages are
legible.
Accordingly, Defendant Holland’s motion to dismiss, which attacked Plaintiff’s initial
pleading, and is difficult to evaluate given the cut-off pages of the original complaint, is DENIED
AS MOOT. 	Additionally, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants Adkins, Five Rivers
Metroparks, and Fritz’s motion to dismiss under the same reasoning. The parties may, if desired,
file renewed motions once Plaintiff’s amended complaint is docketed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 11, 2026 	s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00285-MJN-PBS Doc #: 17 Filed: 03/11/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>