ORDER

DONALD G. WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge.

Now pending before the Court is the Motion to Amend filed by Plaintiff, Patrick B. Long, on June 25, 2013 (Doc. 35). The Motion is GRANTED.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend should be freely given "when justice so requires." Leave, however need not be automatically granted and can be denied if there is undue delay, dilatory motive, or where the amendment would be futile. Johnson v. Cypress Hill, 641 F.3d 867, 871-872 (7th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his Amended Complaint in order to reassert some allegations against Defendants that were deleted from the original Complaint. There appear to be no substantive changes to the allegations made, merely changes in the Defendants against whom the claims are asserted. Defendants generally object that the Second Amended Complaint does not address the arguments made in the pending Motion to Dismiss, to which Plaintiff has not filed a response. Defendants also note that in similar cases filed in this District (13-cv-545-MJR-DGW and 12-cv-1126-GPM-SCW), by the same Plaintiff's counsel and against the same Defendants, Motions to Dismiss have been filed highlighting the same deficiencies as alleged in this case. Defendants thus argue that Plaintiff's attempt to amend, again, a deficient complaint should be denied and their Motion to Dismiss should be considered.

Plaintiff is granted leave to file his Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint (without any strike-through or other editing marks) shall be filed by August 2, 2013. However, the filing of this Second Amended Complaint, because it does not address the deficiencies noted in the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33), does not moot that motion. Instead, Plaintiff is ORDERED to respond to the Motion to Dismiss by August 9, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.