H.E. v. Horton et al
Filing
24
OPINION AND ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint 20 is GRANTED. Following the entry of this Order, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to docket Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintif f's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 13 is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 10 is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery 11 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 5/9/2016. (anc)
Amend”).
I.
BACKGROUND
On October 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Complaint [1], alleging claims under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a five-year old child who suffers from certain
psychiatric and emotional illnesses. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s
Medicaid benefits were cancelled by Defendants.1 The Complaint seeks a
preliminary and permanent injunction “that would mandate the approval and
funding for all medically necessary . . . services” for Plaintiff, and also seeks
monetary damages (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 45).
On December 9, 2015, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss [10]. On
December 11, 2015, Defendants filed their Motion to Stay Discovery [11], seeking
a stay until the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. On December
15, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Preliminary Injunction [13].
1
Keith Horton, Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Human Services,
Bobby Cagle, Director of the Georgia Department of Children and Family services,
Carol Christopher, Deputy Director of the Georgia Department of Family and
Children Services, Adrian Owens, Social Service Administration, Fabienne
Michel, Social Service Supervisor, Laverne Zephir, Social Service Supervisor, and
Lee Gayle Harvill, Social Service Supervisor (collectively, “Defendants”).
2
On January 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Amend. In it, Plaintiff
seeks to file her Amended Complaint [20.1], which adds claims against two
defendants in their official capacities, “clarifies that Plaintiff is seeking prospective
injunctive relief, and contains additional allegations regarding the Defendants’
involvement in the underlying violations of Plaintiff’s federally enforceable
rights.” (Mot. to Amend at 1-2). Plaintiff states that “Defense counsel was not
authorized to consent to an amended pleading.” (Id. at 2). Defendants did not,
however, file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, and the Court deems it
unopposed. LR 7.1(B), NDGa.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a plaintiff to file
one amended complaint as a matter of course, if the amended complaint is filed
either within 21 days of service of the original complaint or within 21 days of the
defendant’s filing of a responsive pleading or Rule 12 motion to dismiss. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Amended complaints outside of these time limits may be filed
only “with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
3
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he court
should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2). “There must be a substantial reason to deny a motion to amend.”
Laurie v. Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, 256 F.3d 1266, 1274 (11th Cir.
2001). “Substantial reasons justifying a denial include ‘undue delay, bad faith,
dilatory motive on the part of the movant, . . . undue prejudice to the opposing
party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.’” Id.
(citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
B.
Analysis
Plaintiff seeks to amend her Complaint to add claims against two defendants
in their official capacities, “clarify[y] that Plaintiff is seeking prospective
injunctive relief, and [add] additional allegations regarding the Defendants’
involvement in the underlying violations of Plaintiff’s federally enforceable
rights.” (Mot. to Amend at 1-2). Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed, and the Court
does not find any “substantial reason to deny” her Motion to Amend. Laurie, 256
F.3d at 1274. Plaintiff’s Motion is thus granted.2
2
Because the operative complaint is, as of the filing of this Order, Plaintiff’s
First Amended Complaint [20.1], Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
4
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an
Amended Complaint [20] is GRANTED. Following the entry of this Order, the
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to docket Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [20.1].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction [13] is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [10] is
DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery
[11] is DENIED AS MOOT.
original Complaint is denied as moot. Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery,
which seeks a stay until resolution of the Motion to Dismiss, also is denied as
moot. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction similarly is denied as moot
because it relies on allegations contained in the original Complaint, which is no
longer the operative Complaint as of the filing of this Order.
5
SO ORDERED this 9th day of May, 2016.
_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?