UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

This cause is before the court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Clarify or Motion to Alter or Amend.

The court having agreed with the Magistrate Judge that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a RICO claim for which relief can be granted, the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint to add Peggy Walker as another Defendant to the RICO claim is futile, and is, therefore, due to be DENIED. Rudolph v. Arthur Andersen & Co. , 800 F.2d 1040, 1042 (11th Cir. 1986). There being no allegation of death, bodily injury, or injury to tangible property as a result of any alleged retaliation by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs have also failed to state a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1513, and the Motion to Amend the Complaint to add a claim under that statute is also futile and due to be DENIED. 18 U.S.C. § 1513 (making unlawful killing, attempting to kill, causing bodily injury, or damaging tangible property in retaliation).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Clarify (Doc. #89) is GRANTED; the Motion to Alter or Amend (Doc. #89) is DENIED; the Motions to Amend and to Add Peggy Walker as a Defendant (Doc. #54) are DENIED.

The case will proceed on the Plaintiffs’ claims for relief, including the contempt petition referenced in the Motion to Clarify, for violation of the First Amendment and for breach of contract.

Done this 24th day of January, 2001.

W. Harold Albriton
W. Harold Albriton
Chief United States District Judge

Child Support Lawsuit Index

[ Home]---[Search]---[Email]---[Access Page]---[Child Support]