United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 23-3119
                       ___________________________

                                      S.A.A.

                                      Plaintiff - Appellant

                                         v.

                 Samantha Geisler, Maple Grove Police Officer

                                      Defendant - Appellee

                            ------------------------------

  The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; Professors of Civil Procedure

                               Amici on Behalf of Appellant(s)
                                ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                         for the District of Minnesota
                                ____________

                           Submitted: June 13, 2024
                             Filed: July 16, 2024
                                ____________

Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

ERICKSON, Circuit Judge.

     S.A.A. brought claims pursuant to 

 against Maple Grove,
Minnesota police officer Samantha Geisler, claiming Fourth Amendment violations
occurred during her arrest. The district court 1 granted Geisler’s motion for summary
judgment on the basis that the complaint failed to plead individual capacity claims
against Geisler as required by our circuit’s clear statement rule and denied S.A.A.’s
fourth motion to amend her complaint for lack of diligence. We affirm.

I.    BACKGROUND

       S.A.A. filed an initial complaint, dated September 20, 2021, alleging false
arrest and excessive force arising out of Geisler’s search of S.A.A.’s home pursuant
to a warrant. The complaint did not specify the capacity in which Geisler was sued,
and S.A.A. subsequently conceded that she had not alleged official capacity claims
against Geisler. S.A.A. twice amended her complaint, first on September 21, 2021,
and again on December 22, 2021. Under the terms of the district court’s scheduling
order, the deadline for amending pleadings expired in May 2022. After the deadline
had passed, S.A.A. moved to file a third amended complaint, which the magistrate
judge reluctantly allowed but warned counsel that “there may not be slack cut in the
future.”

       Geisler moved for summary judgment on March 27, 2023, arguing S.A.A.
violated the Eighth Circuit’s clear statement rule by not explicitly pleading personal
capacity claims. On April 4, 2023, S.A.A. moved to amend her complaint a fourth
time. The magistrate judge denied her motion. The district court then granted
Geisler’s motion for summary judgment, overruled S.A.A.’s objection to the
magistrate judge’s denial of her motion to amend, and denied S.A.A’s motion to
amend. S.A.A. appeals.




      1
        The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota.
                                        -2-
II.   DISCUSSION

       S.A.A. first asserts the district court erred when it found she failed to plead
personal capacity claims against Geisler. Under the clear statement rule, our circuit
interprets complaints that are silent about the capacity in which the defendant is sued
as including only official capacity claims. Egerdahl v. Hibbing Cmty. Coll., 

 (8th Cir. 1995). While this approach has been rejected by other circuits in
lieu of the course of proceedings test, which analyzes the totality of the complaint
and the course of proceedings to determine the capacity in which the defendant is
sued, Yorktown Med. Lab., Inc. v. Perales, 

, 88-89 (2d Cir. 1991), our
precedent is settled. See Baker v. Chisom, 

 (8th Cir. 2007) (tracing
pleading requirement back to Rollins by Agosta v. Farmer, 

 (8th Cir.
1984)).

       S.A.A. admits she has no official capacity claims against Geisler. And her
third amended complaint does not expressly allege individual capacity claims.
While S.A.A. urges us to overturn the clear statement rule, we are bound by the prior
decisions of other panels. Skender v. Eden Isle Corp., 

 (8th Cir.
2022). Likewise, S.A.A.’s reliance on Wealot v. Brooks, 

 (8th Cir.
2017), is misplaced. In Wealot, the Court declined to apply the clear statement rule
for the first time on appeal, finding it “unwise” to decide the case on “unraised
capacity grounds” without first allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to seek an
amendment and affording the district court an opportunity to rule. 

 at 1123 n.4.
Here, S.A.A.’s failure to raise individual capacity claims against Geisler was the
basis for the motion for summary judgment and S.A.A. unsuccessfully moved for
leave to amend to cure the pleading problem. The Court’s concerns raised in Wealot
were addressed in this case, and summary judgment was appropriate.

      S.A.A. also seeks review of the district court’s denial of her fourth motion to
amend the complaint. We review the denial of a motion for leave to amend the
complaint for an abuse of discretion. In re Target Corp. Sec. Litig., 

 (8th Cir. 2020).
                                         -3-
       Because S.A.A. moved for leave to amend to expressly plead individual
capacity claims nearly a year after the deadline for doing so had passed, we apply
the “good cause” standard found in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. See
Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 

 (8th Cir. 2008) (explaining
that Rule 16 rather than Rule 15 applies when a party seeks to amend a pleading
outside the deadline in the scheduling order). The primary measure of good cause
is the movant’s diligence in attempting to meet the order’s requirements. 

.
Prejudice is not considered if the movant has not been diligent. 

.

       While S.A.A. argues that her counsel acted diligently because she moved to
amend eight days after Geisler raised the clear statement rule in a summary judgment
motion, no change in the law or newly discovered facts led to the applicability of the
clear statement rule. Diligence required S.A.A. to comply with the rule “at the outset
of the litigation, and at least prior to the scheduled deadline” for amending the
complaint. See 

. In addition, the magistrate judge reprimanded S.A.A. for
previous violations of the scheduling order, and despite three opportunities to cure
the defect in her complaint, she failed to do so. Under the circumstances, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying S.A.A.’s fourth motion to amend the
complaint.

III.   CONCLUSION

       We affirm the judgment of the district court.
                       ______________________________




                                         -4-