United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
for consideration the motion of plaintiff, Vicki Lee Pruitt
Johnson, for leave to file a first amendment and supplement
to the original complaint. Having considered the motion and
applicable authorities, the court finds the motion should be
filed a series of documents with the court between June 6 and
17, 2019. Doc. 1; Doc. 2; Doc. 6; Doc. 7; Doc. 8. Taken
as a whole, plaintiff's filings asked the court to order
the Supreme Court of Texas to reconsider a dismissed petition
for review or to reconsider all the underlying state court
proceedings itself. Id. On June 26, 2019, Defendants
Judge Steve King, Mark Sullivan, Heather Beyer, and Jennifer
Ramos filed a motion to dismiss. Doc. 9. Plaintiff failed to
memorandum opinion and order dated July 23, 2019, the court
found that it lacks jurisdiction over this action. Doc. 13.
The court issued its final judgment on this matter that same
date, dismissing plaintiff's claims against all
defendants for lack of jurisdiction. Doc. 14.
August 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed the motion in question. Doc.
18. In this motion, plaintiff states that she is entitled to
leave to amend her complaint under Rule 15(a)(2} of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id.
15(a)(2) provides that the court "should freely give
leave [to amend] when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(2). However, "[a]lthough Rule 15(a) evinces a bias
in favor of granting leave to amend, a grant of leave is not
automatic." Matter of Lindsey, 733 Fed.
App'x. 190, 193 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotations and
citations omitted). "Denying a motion to amend is not an
abuse of discretion if allowing an amendment would be
futile." Marucci Sports, L.L.C. v. National
Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 751 F.3d 368, 378 (5th
Cir. 2014) (citing Briggs v. Miss., 331 F.3d 499,
508 (5th Cir. 2005) .
motion to amend should be denied because any amendment she
makes will be futile. As the court stated in its July 23,
2019 memorandum opinion and order, plaintiff's filings
failed to assert any claims over which the court has
jurisdiction. Doc. 13. No. amendment could convey
jurisdiction to the court. Federal courts are courts of
limited jurisdiction and, absent jurisdiction conferred by
statute or the United States Constitution, are without power
to adjudicate claims. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.
Of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
plaintiff seeks mandamus relief. Under the federal mandamus
statute, district. courts only have jurisdiction to compel
action from federal. officers and employees, not their state
counterparts. 28 U.S.C. § 1361; Guillory v.
Easter, No. 3:19-CV-434-C-BN, 2019 WL 1332218, at *1
(N.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2019}, report and recommendation
adopted, 2019 WL 1331034 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2019) . No.
amendment will change the ...