Pigee v. Hanson

Full title: WILLIE L. PIGEE, Plaintiff, v. KAREN R. HANSON, Assistant Genesee County…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Jun 9, 2006

Case No. 05-72903 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 9, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 05-72903.

June 9, 2006

ORDER

JULIAN COOK JR., District Judge

On July 25, 2005, the Plaintiff, Willie L. Pigee, removed this matter to the federal Court from the Genesee County Circuit Court of Michigan with the filing of a "Notice of Removal." In his Complaint, he charges the Defendant, Karen R. Hanson, an Assistant Genesee County Prosecutor, of (1) "violat[ing] his rights under the 14^th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 10, Section 2 of the Michigan Constitution", (2) "encumbering his property interests by recording a document without a lawful cause and with an intent to harass or intimidate," and (3) "libel." On April 25, 2006, Pigee filed a "Motion to Amend Complaint Per March 20, 2006 Scheduling Conference."

In his motion, Pigee contends that

1. The court explained at the March 20, 2006 scheduling conference conducted in Steffeny D. Linn v. Karen R. Hanson, [a companion case] . . . that the conference was meant to also schedule the companion cases, Cathryn V. Sanders v. Karen R. Hanson, . . . and Willie L. Pigee v. Karen R. Hanson. . . .

2. While the Linn v. Hanson Scheduling Order allowed plaintiff to amend her complaint, the Order makes no mention of leave to amend the Pigee and Sanders complaints too, though it was discussed at the March 20, 2006 scheduling conference.

In her Response, Hanson contends that "[t]he Court did not, concurrently, schedule a Pretrial Scheduling Conference for either the Sanders or the Pigee cases." Nevertheless, Hanson stated she "will rely upon the decision of the Court to determine if, and to what extend, Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint should be granted, or not. Once that decision is made by this Court, [Hanson] will respond in the appropriate manner."

A request to amend a pleading is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), which provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. . . . Otherwise a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party." A motion for leave to amend a complaint "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Therefore, "if the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Tefft v. Seward, 689 F.2d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 1982) (Rule 15 "reinforce[s] the principle that cases should be tried on their merits rather than on the technicalities of pleadings"). Decisions as to whether the ends of justice require leave to amend are left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Miller v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 925 F.2d 979, 983 (6^th Cir. 1991).

Upon reviewing the Pigee's motion, as well as the official record in this matter, and believing that (1) he has not acted with "undue delay, bad faith, or a dilatory motive" in bringing forth this motion and (2) Hanson will not suffer any undue prejudice as a result of granting Pigee's motion, Pigee's motion to amend his Complaint is granted. However, Pigee shall file his Amended Complaint with this Court within a period of (14) days from the date of this Order. If he fails, refuses or neglects to comply with this directive within the above listed time period, his request for an amendment shall be automatically rejected.

IT IS SO ORDERED.