McComb v. Paul et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
BRIAN MCCOMB,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 3:25-cv-252
vs.
SETH W. PAUL, et al., 	District Judge Michael J. Newman,
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) GRANTING PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE HIS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. No. 21); (2) INSTRUCTING THE
CLERK TO DOCKET THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. No. 21-1); (3)
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
THE PLEADINGS (Doc. No. 15); AND (4) TERMINATING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. No. 17) AND HIS MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXCESS PAGES (Doc. No. 18)
______________________________________________________________________________
This civil case is before the Court upon Defendants Seth W. Paul, John B. Perry, and West
Carrollton Police Department’s (collectively “Defendants”) motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Doc. No. 15. 	Pro se Plaintiff Brian McComb1 has filed a motion for an extension of time to
respond to Defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 17), and Defendants have filed a memorandum in
opposition (Doc. No. 19). Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to file excess pages. Doc. No. 18.
Finally, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file his first amended complaint with an attached
proposed amended complaint. Doc. Nos. 21, 21-1.
For good cause shown, in the interests of justice and efficiency, and because amendments
to a complaint are freely granted as justice so requires, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for
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-00252-MJN-CHG Doc #: 27 Filed: 03/18/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

leave to file an amended complaint. 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); see generally Parchman v. SLM
Corp., 896 F.3d 728, 736-37 (6th Cir. 2018). 	The Court INSTRUCTS the Clerk to separately
docket the first amended complaint. Doc. No. 21-1.
Given the Court’s ruling, Defendants’ pending motion for judgment on the pleadings is
premature and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 	Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an
extension of time to respond and his motion for leave to file excess pages are both TERMINATED
AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 18, 2026 	s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00252-MJN-CHG Doc #: 27 Filed: 03/18/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>