Order | Filed: September 10, 2026
| Entered: September 10, 2026
Sipple Bey v. Emporia, Kansas, City of et al
Civil Rights: Other | Kansas
Order on Motion to Amend Complaint
ORDER denying 57 Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Verified Complaint. The Court previously denied Plaintiff's prior motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint, explaining that while Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) states that a court "may" permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading under certain circumstances, Plaintiff's prior attempt to supplement was not limited to alleging new transactions or occurrences since the filing of the complaint but instead sought to add additional parties. ECF No. 11. The same is true here. Plaintiff's Motion makes clear that the supplemental pleading adds "Leah Torrens and Douglas P. Jones as proposed additional parties only as to acts and functions for which relief may lawfully be sought, with any immunity issue analyzed according to the function actually performed under controlling Supreme Court authority." ECF No. 57 at 3. As previously explained, given the sheer number of parties and claims in this case, the Court will not allow Plaintiff to add new parties via a Rule 15(d) supplemental pleading. See Leal v. Diaz, No. 117CV00946PABSKC, 2018 WL 7050260, at *1 (D. Colo. Dec. 10, 2018) (explaining that courts are reluctant to allow supplemental pleadings that initiate new claims against new parties). Additionally, the proposed pleading fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) for many of the same reasons the Magistrate Judge has already addressed in a Report and Recommendation in one of Plaintiff's other pending cases in this District. See Sipple Bey v. Jones, No. 26-4050-DDC-RES, ECF No. 7 (D. Kan. Sept. 1, 2026). To summarize just a few of the problems, Plaintiff's proposed 26-page supplemental complaint fails to make clear what claims Plaintiff is attempting to assert against what Defendants and impermissibly incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs, making it impossible to tell what facts give rise to what claims. The proposed pleading contains more than 200 enumerated paragraphs and is filled with conclusory assertions, citations to caselaw, and confusing language with questionable applicability to this case--e.g., "Relator preserves all objections arising from former prosecution, Double Jeopardy, due process, retaliation, prosecutorial purpose, and misuse of governmental process." ECF No. 57-1 at 7. For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion is denied. If Plaintiff's claims ultimately survive early motions to dismiss, the Court will enter a scheduling order that imposes a deadline for amendments to the pleadings. Until that time, Plaintiff should refrain from continuing to file serial motions to amend. As the Court previously explained, "Plaintiff has now filed three complaints before any Defendant has filed a response. At this early stage of the litigation, Plaintiff is strongly discouraged from filing further motions to amend because the practice delays the progression of this case, as demonstrated by the Court's orders granting Defendants extensions of time to respond to Plaintiff's operative pleading in light of the present Motion." ECF No. 32. Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff is using artificial intelligence ("AI") to aid in drafting filings in this case, Plaintiff must review D. Kan. Standing Order 26-01, governing the use of AI, which is available on the District's website: https://ksd.uscourts.gov/standing-orders. Plaintiff remains responsible for verifying the content of his filings. The Court has concerns about Plaintiff's most recent filing for the reasons the Court has already explained to Plaintiff in both this case and the other case referenced in this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz on 9/10/2026. A copy of this order was mailed to Plaintiff at the address listed on the docket. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)