UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

KHWADJA DAVIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 25-cv-10766

ERIC SABREE, et al., Honorable Robert J. White

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 9)

Plaintiff Mitchell Dixon moved to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 9). Dixon’s motion comes after the Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and closed the case. (ECF No. 7). Dixon argued that, as outlined in the amended complaint, jurisdiction is proper. (ECF No. 9, PageID.449). Dixon and his co-Plaintiff Khwadja Davis filed what appears to be their amended complaint on the docket. (ECF No. 10; ECF No. 11). “Following entry of final judgment, a party may not seek to amend their complaint without first moving to alter, set aside, or vacate judgment pursuant to either Rule 59 or Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Morse v. McWhorter,

(6th Cir. 2002); Benzon v. Morgan Stanley Distribs., Inc.,

, 613 (6th Cir. 2005). Here, neither Dixon nor Davis moved to set aside the Court’s dismissal. Because the Court cannot consider the motion to amend until they do so, the Court will deny the motion to amend in its present form.

* * * For the reasons given, the Court ORDERS that the motion to file amended complaint (ECF No. 9) is DENIED.

Dated: August 27, 2025 s/Robert J. White Robert J. White United States District Judge