From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Borman v. Abraham

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Jul 29, 2004
Civil Action No. 04-0287 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 29, 2004)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 04-0287.

July 29, 2004


MEMORANDUM


Presently pending are Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, or in the alternative for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff's brief in opposition, and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). For reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative for Summary Judgment will be dismissed, and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint will be granted.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed her initial complaint on January 22, 2004, alleging violations of the civil rights of Plaintiff's deceased son, Eugene Mann, in connection with his suicide on January 22, 2002, which occurred while the decedent was in police custody. In Plaintiff's initial Complaint, she named Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham, the District Attorney's office, Police Officer John Durrant, and the City of Philadelphia as defendants. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on January 23, 2004, adding two additional police officers as defendants. Plaintiff now seeks to add allegations that an unknown Assistant District Attorney was made aware of Mann's mental health history and suicidal thoughts. Plaintiff also seeks to add allegations relating to Mann's reaction to his arrest by the police, and to clarify that the individual defendants are being sued both in their official capacities and as individuals.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) allows a party to amend its pleadings once as a matter of course at any time prior to the serving of a responsive pleading. Otherwise, a court may give a party leave to amend its complaint "when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P 15(a). The Rule further states that such leave should be "freely given." Id. A District Court may only deny leave to amend if it is apparent from the record that (1) the moving party has demonstrated undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motives, (2) the amendment would be futile, or (3) the amendment would prejudice the opposing party. Fraser v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 352 F.3d 107, 116 (3d Cir. 2003).

III. DISCUSSION

The passage of time is not enough to deny a motion to amend, the delay must have either placed an unwarranted burden on the Court, in which case it is deemed to be "undue," or it must have placed an unfair burden on the opposing party, in which case it is deemed to be "prejudicial." Adams v. Gould Inc., 739 F.2d 858, 868 (3d Cir. 1984). Plaintiff's filing of a Second Amended Complaint has not placed an unwarranted burden on the Court, nor has it placed an unfair burden on the Defendant. The proposed Amended Complaint seeks to add claims regarding the extent to which Defendants were aware of Mann's mental state, and to clarify that Defendants being sued in their official capacity are also being sued in their individual capacity. Defendants would not have to engage in extensive additional discovery in order to defend against these amended claims, therefore I find that no evidence exists sufficient to establish prejudice.

The Third Circuit has defined "futility" for these purposes as meaning that the amended Complaint would fail to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation, 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997). A District Court must apply the same standard of legal sufficiency as applies under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(8) a claim should be dismissed if it fails to state a cause of action, when it appears to a certainty that no relief could be granted under any set of facts which could be proved. See Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984). The District Court must "construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the pleadings, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief." Colburn v. Upper Darby Township, 838 F.2d 663, 665-66 (3d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1065, 109 S.Ct. 1338, 103 L.Ed.2d 808 (1989) (citations omitted).

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants were, or should have been, aware that Mann had a history of attempted suicide, and that he was at risk of committing suicide when he was taken into police custody. If Plaintiff is able to prove these allegations she may be entitled to relief, therefore, the amended complaint is not futile.

There are no grounds on which to deny Plaintiff's Motion to file a Second Amended Complaint. Therefore, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative for Summary Judgment, is moot, as it relates to the first Amended Complaint.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and in consideration of the facts in their totality, I find no grounds to deny Plaintiff's Petition to file a Second Amended Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to file a Second Amended Complaint will be granted. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative for Summary Judgment, is therefore moot as it relates to the first amended complaint, and will be dismissed. An appropriate order follows.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 29th day of July, 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to file a Second Amended Complaint, and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative for Summary Judgment, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to file a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED, and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative for Summary Judgment, is DISMISSED.


Summaries of

Borman v. Abraham

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Jul 29, 2004
Civil Action No. 04-0287 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 29, 2004)
Case details for

Borman v. Abraham

Case Details

Full title:FRANCIS BORMAN, Plaintiff, v. LYNNE ABRAHAM, THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, THE…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Jul 29, 2004

Citations

Civil Action No. 04-0287 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 29, 2004)