Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
No. 12-1119
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Erik William Stanley, ALLIANCE DEFENDING
FREEDOM, Leawood, Kansas, for Appellant. Jennifer Lee
Parrish, PARRISH, HOUCK & SNEAD, PLC, Fredericksburg, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Matthew D.
OPINION
NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:
Challenging the district courts procedural rulings, Calvary
Christian Center of Fredericksburg, Virginia, contends that
the district court abused its discretion in denying its motion
for leave to amend its complaint, which was filed after the
court had dismissed its original complaint, and in denying its
motion for reconsideration. It argues that the court erroneously failed to conduct an "analysis as to whether the proposed amendment [was] prejudicial, in bad faith, or would be
futile" and to take a liberal approach to amendment, as
required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
In making its argument, however, Calvary fails to take
account of the fact that it filed its motion to amend after its
complaint had been dismissed, and there was simply no longer any complaint pending to amend. Calvary never made an
effort to open or vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b), and
we reject its argument that the district court should have construed its motion for reconsideration as a motion to vacate
under Rule 60(b). Accordingly, we affirm.
I
Calvary Christian Center, which had been operating a
before-school and after-school daycare program, sought to
extend its program in 2010 to include a day school for emotionally and mentally disabled children. Its application to the
City of Fredericksburg for the necessary special use permit
was, however, rejected by the city council.
Calvary thereafter filed a complaint against the City, alleging that the Citys denial of the special use permit violated (1)
the Americans With Disabilities Act; (2) the Rehabilitation
Act; (3) the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act; (4) the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment;
and (5) the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
The City filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure
to state a claim, and, on November 21, 2011, the district court
entered an order granting the motion. The court found that
Calvary lacked standing to assert claims under the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act; that Calvary
did not allege that operating the school amounted to a religious activity, which the court found was fatal to its claims
under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act and Free Exercise Clause; and that Calvarys free speech
claim was defective because operating the school was not
expressive conduct, the Citys zoning ordinance was content
neutral, and the zoning regulations were neither vague nor
overbroad. Calvary did not timely appeal the courts order of
dismissal.
Rather than appeal, Calvary filed a "Motion for Leave to
File Amended Complaint" on December 21, 2011. In its
motion, it argued that its proposed amended complaint should
be allowed under the well-established standards of Rule 15
i.e., that the amended complaint was not futile, would not
prejudice the City, and was offered in good faith. By order
dated December 22, 2011, the court denied the motion for
leave to amend, stating:
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs
motion for leave to file an amended complaint. This
case was dismissed on November 21, 2011.
A week later, on December 29, 2011, Calvary filed a "Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint or in the Alternative for an Extension of