Opinion
Case No. CV-05-721-KD-M.
July 21, 2006
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on plaintiff's "Motion for Leave to Amend", filed June 23, 2006 (Doc. 24); defendants Correctional Medical Services, Inc. ("CMS"), and Carla Wasdin's objection thereto (Doc. 27); plaintiff's response (Doc. 29) and defendants' reply thereto (Doc. 30).
Pursuant to the Court's Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order, the deadline for filing amended pleadings is June 23, 2006. (See Doc. 17).
On July 12, 2006 the undersigned directed plaintiff to file a response to defendants' objection to the motion to amend. (Doc. 28) Plaintiff complied (doc. 29) and defendants filed a reply thereto on July 17, 2006. (Doc. 30).
I. Procedural History
Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Mobile Metro Jail, filed this 1983 action against defendants on December 16, 2005 alleging, in sum that defendants were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of plaintiff such that plaintiff's rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were violated. (Doc. 1) Plaintiff also alleges claims of negligent and wanton training and supervision, negligence, wantonness and outrage. (Id.)
The Court entered a Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order on March 22, 2006. (Doc. 17) Plaintiff now seeks leave of Court to amend her complaint to include twenty three additional defendants to this action. (Doc. 24, Attachment) Defendants, Correctional Medical Services, Inc., and Carla Wasdin, object to the motion, on the grounds, in sum, that the amendment would substantially prejudice defendants and would require a modification of the scheduling order "without the requisite showing of `good cause'." (Id. at 12) Plaintiff responds, in sum, that the amendment is within the time frame set by the Court in the Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order and the addition of the defendants will not unduly prejudice defendants nor will it cause undue delay of this matter. (Doc. 29)
The deadlines set by the Court's order include the following: Amended Pleadings-June 23, 2006; Discovery — January 5, 2007, and Dispositive Motions-January 26, 2007. Jury selection is scheduled for June 26, 2007.
II. Discussion
The decision whether to grant leave to amend a complaint is within the sole discretion of the district court. Laurie v. Alabama Ct. of Crim. App., 256 F.3d 1266, 1274 (11th Cir. 2001). However, Rule 15(a) tempers the court's discretion by directing that "leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001). The Supreme Court has held that "[i]f the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject for relief, he [or she] ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962).
Thus, the court must have a substantial reason to deny a motion to amend. Laurie, 256 F.3d at 1274. Substantial reasons justifying a denial include "undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendment previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of the amendment." Foman, 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S.Ct. 227; see also Hargett v. Valley Fed. Savings Bank, 60 F.3d 754, 761 (11th Cir. 1995).
Dilatory Conduct/Undue Delay
The crux of defendants' objection is that plaintiff should have filed a motion to amend sooner than the last day the scheduling order set for the filing of such motions. Defendants argue that "[p]laintiff was aware that there were potential parties to this action that were unknown to her as evidenced by the Plaintiff's initial complaint wherein she named unknown fictitious defendant employees of both CMS and the Mobile County Sheriff's Department." In addition, defendants contend that their initial disclosures should have put the Plaintiff on notice that any amendments to the complaint should have been made promptly as well as alerting the plaintiff as to the necessity of filing a motion to amend the Scheduling Order.
Plaintiff maintains that defendants' discovery responses and objections to discovery have delayed discovery and made it difficult for plaintiffs to identify all potential defendants. As a result plaintiff contends that, in an abundance of caution, she seeks to add these individuals as defendants in this action.
While plaintiffs proposed amendment is significant in the number of individuals it seeks to add as defendants, the Court finds that plaintiffs' actions do not reflect dilatory conduct or undue delay to warrant denial of the motion.
Undue Prejudice
Defendants next argue that the proposed amendment will necessitate a revision of the Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order. Plaintiff counters that she seeks to amend her complaint within the time frame ordered by the Court in the Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order and does not anticipate seeking an amendment to the existing scheduling order. (Doc. 24) While plaintiff concedes that defendants may suffer prejudice if the amendment is granted, she contends that defendants will not suffer "undue prejudice".
Defendants may suffer some prejudice as a result of the inclusion of twenty-three additional defendants. However, the Court cannot say that defendants will suffer the type of undue prejudice which would justify the denial of the motion. See Loggerhead Turtle v. Council of Volusia Cty., 148 F.3d 1231, 1257 (11th Cir. 1998) (noting that "[a]ny amendment to an original pleading necessarily involves some additional expense to the opposing party," but adding that this will not justify denial of leave where the additional expense is "of nominal proportions")
Good Cause Under Rule 16
Defendants next argue that the amendment would require that the scheduling order be revised and that plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showing of "good cause" for modification of the Scheduling Order. Sosa v. Airprint Systems, Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1419 (11th Cir. 1998) ("If we considered only Rule 15(a) without regard to Rule 16(b), we would render scheduling orders meaningless and effectively would read Rule 16(b) and its good cause requirement out of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). Alexander v. AOL Time Warner, Inc., 132 Fed. Appx. 267, 269 (11th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff argues that she has no plans to seek an amendment to the scheduling order and maintains that any delay in discovery is due to defendants' actions.
Defendants take issue with plaintiff's contention that they have in any manner delayed discovery in this action. (See Doc. 30) As noted by both parties, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide procedural vehicles by which the parties may seek court intervention to resolve any discovery disputes that may arise during the course of this litigation.
Plaintiffs' motion was filed on June 23, 2006, the last day in which to file such a motion pursuant to the Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order. While defendants speculate that the amendment will require a revision of the scheduling order, nearly six (6) months of discovery remain in this action with a trial date in late June, 2007. At this juncture, the Court is of the opinion that the parties should be able to work within the time frames established in the existing scheduling order.
Futility of Amendment
Defendants further argue that the amendment seeking to add as defendants employees of CMS would be futile, on the grounds, in part that plaintiff has testified that a correctional officer gave her the insulin. In addition, defendants contend that the proposed amended complaint does not assert any affirmative causal connection necessary to sustain a Section 1983 claim between the plaintiff's alleged injuries and the additional persons plaintiff seeks to add as additional parties.
Plaintiff argues that it is not apparent from the amended complaint that the plaintiff's causes of action against the additional parties are futile and argues there are there are factual issues which need developing, including which nurses were aware of plaintiff's medical condition, which nurses delayed treatment to plaintiff, which nurses denied plaintiff her heart medication, and which nurses actually provided insulin to plaintiff. Plaintiff maintains that defendant Tillman and Haley have not identified any correctional officer who administered medication to plaintiff and if there is such an individual, defendant CMS should identify that individual. While plaintiff concedes that this matter is subject to further discovery, plaintiff contends that it does not negate the liability of CMS and/or CMS employees who permitted any correctional officer to administer medicine.
"When a district court denies the plaintiff leave to amend a complaint due to futility, the court is making the legal conclusion that the complaint, as amended, would necessarily fail." St. Charles Foods, Inc. v. America's Favorite Chicken Co., 198 F.3d 815, 822-23 (11th Cir. 1999); Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 169 F.3d 1310, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999) (denial of leave to amend justified by futility when "complaint as amended is still subject to dismissal"); Florida Power Light Co. v. Allis Chalmers Corp., 85 F.3d 1514, 1520 (11th Cir. 1996) (amendment is futile if cause of action asserted therein could not withstand motion to dismiss). Thus, as it would in resolving a motion to dismiss, the Court will turn to the face of plaintiff's proposed amended complaint to determine whether the amendment is futile.
In order "[t]o sustain a cause of action based on section 1983, [a plaintiff] must establish two elements: (1) that [he] suffered a deprivation of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the act or omission causing the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of law."Wideman v. Shallowford Community Hosp., Inc., 826 F.2d 1030, 1032 (11th Cir. 1987) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Supervisory officials can only be liable if they personally participate in the alleged constitutional violation or where there is a "causal connection between actions of the supervising official and the alleged constitutional deprivation." Id. (quoting Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 671 (11th Cir. 1990)).
Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint seeks to add as defendants employees of CMS and Correctional Officers at the Mobile County Metro Jail. As to the CMS employees, the amended complaint alleges, in pertinent part:
Defendants Chinetha Smith, Trina Perine, Ashley Fleming, Racy Mattox, Debbie Buck, Susan Henson, Sylvia Rankin and Dr. Marc Sonnier are employees of Defendant CMS at the Mobile County Metro Jail responsible for monitoring the health and medical condition of detainees such as Plaintiff (hereinafter collectively referred to as "CMS Employee Defendants"). Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of Plaintiff and acted negligently and/or wantonly in monitoring Plaintiff's deteriorating medical condition during Plaintiff's incarceration as a detainee at the Mobile County Metro Jail and failed to provide adequate treatment to Plaintiff.
(Doc. 24, Attachment at ¶ 7) The Court finds that "the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by [plaintiffs] may be a proper subject of relief," therefore, plaintiffs should be afforded the opportunity to test the claims against these defendants on the merits. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182.
III. Conclusion
Plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint was filed within the time frame established by the Court for amending pleadings. Moreover, nearly six (6) months of discovery remain in this action and the trial date is just shy of a year away. While the inclusion of an additional twenty three individuals will certainly place a burden on the discovery process, defendants have not shown that they will suffer undue prejudice by the amendment. Moreover, defendants have not show that the amendment would be futile. Therefore, upon consideration, and for the reasons set forth herein, plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file and serve the amended complaint on defendants by
DONE and ORDERED.