William J. Letts v. Five Rivers Metroparks, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON WILLIAM J. LETTS, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:25-cv-285 vs. FIVE RIVERS METROPARKS, District Judge Michael J. Newman et al., Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. No. 12); (2) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO DOCKET HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT; (3) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO ACCEPT PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT ONCE FILED; (4) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT HOLLAND’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 5); AND (5) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS ADKINS, FIVE RIVERS METROPARKS, AND FRITZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 8) ______________________________________________________________________________ This is a civil case in which Plaintiff William J. Letts, pro se,1 alleges constitutional and civil rights violations against Defendants Emily Holland, David Adkins, Five Rivers Metroparks, and Jeremy Fritz. Doc. No. 1. Currently pending before the Court is Defendant Holland’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 5), as well as Defendants Adkins, Five Rivers Metroparks, and Fritz’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 8). Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint (Doc. No. 12), to which Defendants filed responses (Doc. Nos. 12, 14). Plaintiff also filed a response opposing both motions to dismiss, though it was labeled as only addressing Defendants Adkins, Five Rivers Metroparks, and Fritz’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 15). Defendants filed a reply. Doc. No. 16.

The Court has carefully considered all of the foregoing, and the motions are now ripe for decision.

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).

Leave to amend must be “freely” given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

The Court notes that some pages of Plaintiff’s complaint are currently scanned improperly and therefore not legible for consideration. See Doc. No. 1. Therefore, in light of Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint, and after review of the complete record in this case, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff is directed to docket his amended complaint, taking care to ensure the entire complaint is completely legible for the Court. Thereafter, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to accept Plaintiff’s first amended complaint as filed, so long as all pages are legible.

Accordingly, Defendant Holland’s motion to dismiss, which attacked Plaintiff’s initial pleading, and is difficult to evaluate given the cut-off pages of the original complaint, is DENIED AS MOOT. Additionally, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants Adkins, Five Rivers Metroparks, and Fritz’s motion to dismiss under the same reasoning. The parties may, if desired, file renewed motions once Plaintiff’s amended complaint is docketed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 11, 2026 s/Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge