Walton v. Wayne County Sheriff's Department

Full title: JESSE J. WALTON, #239393, Plaintiff, v. WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT…

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

Date published: Feb 7, 2006

No. 05-70363 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 7, 2006)

Opinion

No. 05-70363.

February 7, 2006

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

R. WHALEN, Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff, a pro se prison inmate in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed a Motion to Amend Complaint on July 11, 2005 [Docket #24] and Motion for Leave to Add Party on June 30, 2005 [Docket #21]. Plaintiff alleges that Wayne County Sheriff's Department Detective Terri Smiddy attempted to "sabotage" his case against the above Defendants by misplacing crucial evidence. Reply at ¶ 4. Although he concedes that Smiddy did not participate in the events pertaining to his underlying excessive force claims against Defendants, he alleges that she assisted Defendants by hindering an internal affairs investigation into those claims. Id. at 4,7.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) states that after a responsive pleading is filed, a complaint may be amended only by leave of the court, and that "leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." Despite the general rule of liberality with which leave to file amended complaints is to be granted, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), the Sixth Circuit has held that when a proposed amended complaint would not survive a motion to dismiss, the court may properly deny the amendment. Neighborhood Development Corp. v. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 632 F.2d 21, 23 (6^th Cir. 1980); Thiokol Corporation v. Department of Treasury, 987 F.2d 376 (6^th Cir. 1993).

Plaintiff's allegations against Smiddy, liberally construed, state claims of constitutional magnitude sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.¹ Further, Plaintiff has alleged a significant relationship between the underlying claims and his accusations against Smiddy. Although Defendants argue that the Court should not permit Plaintiff to use "stall tactics," ( Response at ¶ 11) I note that as of today, despite multiple directives from the Court, Defendants have failed to file one substantive pleading in this case in over six months.²

1 Plaintiff's claims that Smiddy was "incompetent" and "negligent," of course, do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Reply at ¶ 4. However, the Court does not infer that Plaintiff alleges that Smiddy was merely incompetent and negligent, but notes that he also claims additionally that she deliberately misplaced evidence, conspiring with Defendants to deprive him of his constitutional rights. Id. at ¶¶ 2,4,6.

2 On September 15, 2005, this Court issued an order requiring a responsive pleading to Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and Summary Judgment [Docket #33]. On November 9, 2005, the Court issued a second order [Docket #37]. On January 13, 2006, the Court issued a Order to Show Cause [Docket #41], which as of today, Defendants have not responded.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint [Docket #24] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Add Party on June 30, 2005 [Docket #21] is DENIED AS MOOT.