Queen v. Canale

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS DOUGLAS STUART QUEEN, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 25-cv-2298-JAR-TJJ NATALIE CANALE, et al, Defendants.

ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Cases (ECF No. 73), Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Deadlines (ECF No. 76), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 82). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motions are DENIED.

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Deadlines (ECF No. 76), Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Consideration of Rule 72(a) Objections and Motions to Stay (ECF No. 73) On September 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Objection (ECF No. 77) to the undersigned’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. On the same day, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay Deadlines Pending Resolution of Rule 72(a) Objections (ECF No. 76), requesting the Court stay all deadlines in this matter pending the District Judge’s disposition of his Objection. Because not all Defendants have been served in this matter, the Court has yet to set any deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a). Further, Plaintiff has already responded to any pending motions filed by the Defendants that are currently in the case. Therefore, there are no active deadlines for the Court to stay pending the resolution of Plaintiff’s Objection. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Deadlines (ECF No. 76) is DENIED.

Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Consolidate Consideration of Rule 72(a) Objections and Motion to Stay (ECF No. 73). This Court has repeatedly found that consolidating Plaintiff’s pending cases in this District is inappropriate.1 Further, Plaintiff filed the same Objection and Motion for Consolidation in several of his cases, including 25-cv-2292-JAR-TJJ, 25-cv-2298- JAR-TJJ, and 25-cv-2459-EFM-TJJ. The Objection has already been resolved in at least one of his pending cases.2 Therefore, the Court does not find it appropriate to consolidate Plaintiff’s cases, even for the limited purpose of resolving the Objection, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Consideration of Rule 72(a) Objections and Motions to Stay is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 82) Plaintiff seeks leave to file an Amended Complaint to add a Defendant and to include factual allegations against the new Defendant. Plaintiff attaches to his Motion what is titled a “Proposed Amended Complaint” as Exhibit 2. However, Plaintiff’s Proposed Amended Complaint only includes his claims and factual contentions against the Defendant he seeks to add and does not incorporate any of the allegations contained in the current operative Complaint. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking to amend his complaint by interlineation or incorporation, the Court will not permit him to do so here. Amendment of the pleadings by interlineation is not expressly allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 or D. Kan. Rule 15.1, “and generally ‘courts do not permit plaintiffs to amend their complaints by interlineation, and instead require amendment so that a pleading is

1 See ECF Nos. 28 and 63.

2 See Queen v. City of Kansas City, Kansas, et al., 25-2459-EFM-TJJ, ECF No. 36. complete by itself.’’? | Allowing amendment by interlineation or reference would make it difficult for Defendants and the Court to understand and determine the operative allegations.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 82) is denied without prejudice. If Plaintiff chooses to refile his motion, he must attach a complete and comprehensive proposed Amended Complaint, containing all of the language, parties, and claims he intends to bring in this action.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate Consideration of Rule 72(a) Objections and Motions to Stay (ECF No. 73), Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Deadlines (ECF No. 76), and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 82) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated September 30, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.

Teresa J. ames U.S. Magistrate Judge Abraham v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, No. 24-cy-2354-DDC-TJJ, 2025 WL 1548437, at *1 n.3 (D. Kan. May 30, 2025) (quoting Poslof v. Martel, No. 3:18-cv-00761-MMA-AGS, 2018 WL 3019916, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2018)).