UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

ERIK COOPER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 3:25-CV-80-KAC-DCP ) PANDA EXPRESS, INC., ) JOSEPH MANNING, ) DEREK HANSON, ) THOMAS HART, ) JESSICA ROMERO, ) CITY OF SEVIERVILLE, and ) DOES 2–10, ) ) Defendants. )

O R D E R This case is before the undersigned pursuant to

, the Rules of this Court, and Standing Order 13-02. On August 8, 2025, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order [Doc. 49] finding that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint did not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court therefore directed Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint [Id.]. On September 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 50]. Defendants thereafter filed Motions to Strike the Second Amended Complaint, generally arguing that Plaintiff’s pleading does not comply with the Court’s previous Memorandum and Order [Docs. 51 & 52]. Defendants City of Sevierville, Tennessee, Joseph Manning, Derek Hanson, and Thomas Hart (collectively, “Sevierville Defendants”) further ask that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice [Doc. 52 p. 8]. Following the briefing of those motions, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike the Sevierville Defendants’ Reply [Doc. 60]. On the same day, however, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Withdraw Second Amended Complaint Doc. 50 and File Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“Motion to Withdraw”) [Doc. 61].1 He states that the Sevierville Defendants’ reply to their Motion to Strike

alleged the specific issues with the Second Amended Complaint [Id. at 2]. Plaintiff submits, “While [he] remains receptive to [D]efendants’ concerns and has attempted to achieve compliance with Rule 8 as the Court directed [Doc. 49], at the Court’s discretion, Plaintiff will withdraw his Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 50] and refile an amended complaint (Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint) incorporating Sevierville Defendants’ untimely disclosure of specific citations first offered in their [r]eply” [Doc. 61 p. 3 (emphasis omitted)]. The Court finds Plaintiff’s request well taken, and it will allow him an opportunity to file a Third Amended Complaint. While the Sevierville Defendants seek dismissal of this case, the Court finds that request prematurely harsh [see Doc. 49 p. 15] in light of Plaintiff’s offer to file a Third Amended Complaint.2

Given the above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Second Amended Complaint Doc. 50 and File Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint [Doc. 61]. Plaintiff SHALL file

1 Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw [Doc. 61] is not ripe. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.2(a). It, however, relates to Defendants’ Motions to Strike, and the Court does not find further briefing necessary. See E.D. Tenn. 7.2 (“Under exceptional circumstances, the Court may act upon a motion prior to the expiration of the response time.”). Further, the Court elects to act expeditiously given that this case is almost eight months old and still in the pleading stage.

2 Plaintiff states that “at the Court’s preference, [he] will utilize the Court’s Form Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (

) [Doc. 53-1] to file this Third Amended Complaint [Doc. 61]. Plaintiff, however, is the master of his complaint. Father Flanagan’s Boys Home v. Donlon,

, 748 (S.D. Ohio 2020). As such, the Court declines to direct Plaintiff to use a particular form and only directs him to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable Local Rules. the Third Amended Complaint on or before November 7, 2025, and it SHALL comply with Rule 8. Given that, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the motions [Does. 51, 52, 60]. IT IS SO ORDERED. ENTER: f . Nes f fr. ‘ GO dn Debra C. Poplin kc United States Magistrate Judge