Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5406
12-11-2013
JONATHAN MICHAEL RUIZ v. JAMES LEBLANC, ROBERT TANNER, BILLY ANDERSON, DM WHEAT, JOHN DOE
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Rec. Doc. No. 11) filed by the pro se plaintiff, Jonathan Michael Ruiz. The plaintiff seeks leave to file a supplement to his original complaint to properly identify two previously named defendants and to reassert and clarify his claims against the defendants.
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the amendment of pleadings. It provides that leave to amend pleadings "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). This and other federal rules "reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." Conley v Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48 (1957).
Rule 15(a) evinces a liberal amendment policy and a motion to amend should not be denied absent a substantial reason to do so. See Jacobsen v Osborne, 133 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir. 1998). However, leave to amend is by no means automatic. Wimm v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 3 F.3d 137, 139 (5th Cir. 1993); Addington v. Farmer's Elevator Mut. Ins. Co., 650 F.2d 663, 666 (5th Cir. 1981). The decision to grant or deny a motion for leave to amend lies within the sound discretion of the Trial Court. Addington, 650 F.2d at 666.
In exercising its discretion, the Court may consider such factors as "undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, and futility of the amendment." Gregory v. Mitchell, 634 F.2d 199, 203 (5th Cir. 1981). Leave to amend should be denied when doing so is required for fairness to the party opposing the motion for leave to amend. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltime Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (1971).
In his original complaint, Ruiz raised claims challenging certain disciplinary proceedings and punishments he received after a fight with another inmate in the B.B. "Sixty" Rayburn Correctional Center. He named as defendants Secretary James LeBlanc, Warden Robert Tanner, Billy Anderson, DM Wheat, and John Doe. Summons were issued to and served on the named defendants except John Doe, and the service notice was returned unexecuted as to DM Wheat.
In his proposed amended complaint, Ruiz seeks to supplement his original complaint to properly identify "DM Wheat" as Don Wheat and "John Doe" as Lorell Morris. He also seeks to clarify the claims urged against these defendants in the original complaint.
With no opposition to the motion having been filed and upon review of the record, the Court finds that leave to file the proposed supplemental and amended complaint can be granted without prejudice to the defendants at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Ruiz's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Rec. Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall FILE AND DOCKET a copy of the Supplement and Amended Complaint with attached exhibits (Rec. Doc. No. 11-2) and shall ISSUE summons and CAUSE service of the summons and copies of the original Complaint Supplemental and Amended Complaint upon the defendants Don Wheat and Lorell Morris and service of the summons and a copy of the Supplemental and Amended Complaint upon the original defendants, Secretary LeBlanc, Warden Tanner, and Billy Anderson, through the U.S. Marshal's Service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2).
New Orleans, Louisiana this 11th day of December, 2013.
____________________________
KAREN WELLS ROBY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CLERK TO:
FILE SUPPLEMENTAL AND AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND
ISSUE SUMMONS