govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-4_25-cv-00585-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
DEANDRE WALTON,  
 
 Plaintiff,  
     v.  
 
JUDGE PAULA BRYANT, et al.,  
 
 Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
  
 No. 4:25-cv-000585-SEP 
 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Deandre Walton’s post-dismissal Motion to 
Amend.  See Doc. [17].  Walton’s civil rights suit was dismissed on June 12, 2025, and the 
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on October 1, 2025.  See Docs. [3], [4], 
[14].  For the reasons set forth below, his request to amend post-dismissal is denied. 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) counsels federal courts to “freely grant leave [to 
amend a pleading] when justice so requires.”  But “[a]fter a complaint is dismissed, the right to 
amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) terminates.”  Humphreys v. Roche Biomedical Lab’ys, Inc., 
990 F.2d 1078, 1082 (8th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).  The liberal pleading standard of Rule 
15(a) “does not govern when, following a final judgment, the case is closed and there is no 
pending pleading to amend.”  BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, 145 S. Ct. 1612, 1621 (2025).  
Leave to amend may still be granted in the Court’s discretion, but “interests of finality dictate 
that leave to amend should be less freely available after a final order has been entered.”  U.S. ex 
rel. Roop v. Hypoguard USA, Inc., 559 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir. 2009).  The Court has 
“considerable discretion to deny a post-judgment motion for leave to amend because such 
motions are disfavored.”  Id. at 824.  
Amendment is properly denied when the proposed amended complaint could not 
withstand initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).  See Baptist Health v. Smith, 477 F.3d 
540, 544 (8th Cir. 2007) (even under Rule 15(b), “there is no absolute right to amend”; a court 
may deny a motion to amend for a number of reasons including futility) (citation omitted); 
Holloway v. Dobbs, 715 F.2d 390, 392 (8th Cir. 1983) (denial of leave to amend justified 
because the “complaint, as amended, could not withstand a motion to dismiss”).   
Case: 4:25-cv-00585-SEP     Doc. #:  18     Filed: 06/03/26     Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
 
 Plaintiff filed this civil rights action against Missouri Circuit Judge Paula Bryant, who 
presided over his criminal action, alleging denial of his Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth 
Amendment rights.  Doc. [1].  Because Plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court 
reviewed the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.  Based on that review, the Court determined 
that Judge Bryant was judicially immune from Plaintiff’s claims against her.  Doc. [3] at 4.   
 Plaintiff now argues that he should be allowed to bring an action against Judge Bryant 
because he thinks she is liable for judicial misconduct and bias.  Doc. [17] at 1-3.  But Plaintiff 
does not allege that Judge Bryant acted outside of her judicial capacity or in the absence of 
jurisdiction—one of which is required to overcome the defense of judicial immunity.  See 
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991).  Because Plaintiff’s proposed amendment would not 
cure the Complaint’s pleading deficiencies, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend.     
 Accordingly, 
 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, Doc. [17], is DENIED. 
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good 
faith. 
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not accept any further filings in this 
action unless they relate to an appeal.   
  
Dated this 3
rd day of June, 2026. 
   
 _______________________________________ 
 SARAH E. PITLYK 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Case: 4:25-cv-00585-SEP     Doc. #:  18     Filed: 06/03/26     Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight