716 Fed.Appx. 930 (11th Cir. 2018), 17-11278, Hoke v. Lyle

Docket Nº:17-11278
Citation:716 Fed.Appx. 930
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:Stephen Ray HOKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. LYLE, Chaplain, Warden, Tiffany Henry, Mailroom Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees, Governor, et al., Defendants.
Attorney:Stephen Ray Hoke, Pro Se Michelle Jeanette Hirsch, Amy L. Macrina, Christopher Michael Carr, David S. Grossman, Attorney General’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees
Judge Panel:Before WILSON, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:March 27, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 930

716 Fed.Appx. 930 (11th Cir. 2018)

Stephen Ray HOKE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Mr. LYLE, Chaplain, Warden, Tiffany Henry, Mailroom Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees, Governor, et al., Defendants.

No. 17-11278

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

March 27, 2018

Editorial Note:

DO NOT PUBLISH. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 36-2.)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, D.C. Docket No. 6:16-cv-00045-JRH-RSB

Stephen Ray Hoke, Pro Se

Michelle Jeanette Hirsch, Amy L. Macrina, Christopher Michael Carr, David S. Grossman, Attorney General’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Hoke, a Georgia prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se civil rights suit, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a), challenging the return of a Bible study course and religious calendar to the senders after he failed to submit a "prior package" request as required by prison policy. The district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss without expressly addressing Hoke’s request for leave to amend his complaint. On appeal, Hoke argues, among other things, that the district court abused its discretion by not addressing, and thereby implicitly denying, his request for leave to amend. After careful review, we vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

We review a district court’s denial of leave to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion. Smith v. Sch. Bd. of Orange Cnty., 487 F.3d 1361, 1366 (11th Cir. 2007). Where (as here) a district court has not explicitly denied a pending motion, the subsequent entry of final judgment constitutes an implicit denial of that motion. Addington v. Farmer’s Elevator Mut. Ins. Co., 650 F.2d 663, 666 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981).

A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it, or if the pleading is one to...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP