Opinion
No. 09-11049 Non-Argument Calendar.
April 2, 2010.
Charlotte Taylor, Lake Worth, FL, pro se.
Andrew Marcus Pelino, Palm Beach County Attorney's Office, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 08-81054-CV-KAM.
Before BLACK, BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges.
Charlotte Taylor appeals from the district court's dismissal, with prejudice, of her pro se civil complaint, which was filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. On appeal, Taylor argues the district court erred when it denied as futile her request to file an amended complaint. Specifically, she argues she had the right to file an amendment as a matter of course, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15, because the defendants had not yet filed a responsive pleading.
A district court's denial of a motion to amend a complaint is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, although the underlying legal conclusion of whether a particular amendment to the complaint would be futile is reviewed de novo. Corsello v. Lincare, Inc., 428 F.3d 1008, 1012 (11th Cir. 2005). A party may amend its pleading once, as a matter of course, before being served with a responsive pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1). For the purposes of this Rule, a motion to dismiss is not considered a responsive pleading. Fortner v. Thomas, 983 F.2d 1024, 1032 (11th Cir. 1993). Although the futility of a proposed amended complaint can be a justifiable reason for denying leave to amend, see Moore v. Baker, 989 F.2d 1129, 1131 (11th Cir. 1993), we have held, "[w]hen the plaintiff has the right to file an amended complaint as a matter of course . . . the plain language of Rule 15(a) shows that the [district] court lacks the discretion to reject the amended complaint based on its alleged futility," Williams v. lid. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Georgia, 477 F.3d 1282, 1292 n. 6 (11th Cir. 2007).
The record in this case demonstrates Taylor sought to amend her complaint after the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Because a motion to dismiss is not considered a responsive pleading for Rule 15 purposes, see Fortner, 983 F.2d at 1032, Taylor had the right to amend her complaint as a matter of course, see Williams, 477 F.3d at 1292, n. 6. Thus, the district court lacked the discretion to reject her amended complaint based on alleged futility. Id. VACATED AND REMANDED.