Rose v. City of West Frankfort et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TINA ROSE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF WEST FRANKFORT,
TIMOTHY C. ARVIEW, and
THAD SNELL,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-00845-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff Tina Rose’s Motion for Leave to File
Supplemental Complaint (Doc. 67). Defendants filed a response (Doc. 71), and Plaintiff filed a
reply (Doc. 72). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) provides that: “[o]n motion and
reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading
setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be
supplemented.” F ED. R. C IV. P. 15(d). “A party does not have an absolute right to file a
supplemental pleading.” Chalmers v. Rector, No. 15-CV-044-MJR, 2015 WL 5675799, at *2
(S.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2015). “Rather, ‘the district court has substantial discretion either to permit or
to deny such a motion.’” Id. (quoting Chicago Reg’l Council of Carpenters v. Vill. Of
Schaumburg, 644 F.3d 353, 356 (7th Cir. 2011)).
The Court has reviewed the proposed supplemental pleading and finds that it does not
comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 and Local Rule 5.1. Rule 8 requires “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” F ED. R. C IV.
P. 8(a)(2). Further, it states that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” F ED. R.
C IV. P. 8(d)(1). Rule 10 requires a party to state its claims “in numbered paragraphs, each limited
Case 3:25-cv-00845-JPG Document 74 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” F ED. R. C IV. P. 10(b). Local Rule 5.1
requires that all pleadings filed in this District be “plainly typewritten, printed, or prepared by a
clearly legible duplication process and double-spaced.” SDIL-LR 5.1(a).
The proposed supplemental complaint is not simple, concise, or direct. Instead, it
contains extensive factual details. In addition, it does not contain a short and plain statement
showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Rather, it makes broad assertions that the facts are
relevant to Plaintiff’s claims but fails to explain how the facts are relevant. It is not up to the
Court, nor the defendants, to scour the supplemental complaint and try to piece together how the
facts alleged support Plaintiff’s claims. Finally, it is single-spaced, and the allegations are not in
separately numbered paragraphs. Since the proposed supplemental complaint fails to comply
with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 and Local Rule 5.1, the Court DENIES Plaintiff
Tina Rose’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint (Doc. 67). The denial is without
prejudice to Plaintiff filing another motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint. However,
the Court WARNS Plaintiff that any proposed supplemental pleading filed must comply with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	March 10, 2026
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00845-JPG Document 74 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>