Bown v. Reinke et al

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend 53 is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall immediately file his amended complaint. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
WILLIAM A. BOWN,
Case No. 1:12-cv-00262-BLW
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
BRENT D. REINKE, et. al.,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is Bown’s Motion For Leave to Amend Complaint. (Dkt.
53). For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the motion.
BACKGROUND
Because Defendant has not yet answered the initial complaint (Dkt. 1), or the
amended complaint (Dkt. 53), all background information stated here is taken from
Bown’s pleadings. See Am. Compl. Redline, Dkt. 53-2. On February 19, 2012, Bown
complained to the IMSI guards about severe left arm pain and a burning chest pain. Am.
Compl. Redline ¶¶ 36-39, Dkt. 53-2. Nurse Richins treated him, but she apparently lacked
urgency in her response. Id. at ¶ 42. Nurse Richins then performed a physical EKG
examination on Bown and gave the results to PA Barrett for analysis. Id. at ¶¶ 44-45.
Both Richins and Barrett failed to realize the seriousness of Bown’s condition, and sent
him to an observation cell rather than calling for emergency care. Id. at ¶¶ 46-47. After

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

multiple prison staff members ignored Bown’s screams and cries for help, Nurse Luster,
the nurse on shift following Nurse Richins, called for emergency transport. See id. at 11.
Graham K. Weatherly, MD, at St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, diagnosed Bown
as suffering from an acute inferior wall myocardial infarction. Id. at ¶ 59.
On May 24, 2012, Bown brought this lawsuit against Reinke, Siegert, Blades,
Crosby, Mettie, Blake, Pixler, and Richardson (hereinafter “IDOC Defendants”); and
Corizon, Inc., f/k/a Correctional Medical Services, Inc., Karen B. Barrett, PA, April
Dawson, MD, and Cassie Richins, LPN, (hereinafter “Corizon Defendants”). See Compl.,
Dkt. 1. In the initial complaint, Bown alleged that the Corizon Defendants and the IDOC
Defendants violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment of the
Constitution by failing to adequately respond to his medical needs. Id. The claims were
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id.
On December 21, 2012, all parties entered into a Stipulation for Temporary Stay
of Federal Proceeding (Dkt. 34). The parties stipulated to a stay to await a state court
lawsuit filed by Bown against the Corizon Defendants. The state court lawsuit was filed
on February 20, 2012 against only the Corizon Defendants and not the IDOC Defendants.
Burke Aff., Dkt. 56, Ex. A. Awaiting the resolution of the state court action, the parties in
this case stipulated to a second stay of proceedings on January 8, 2014. Dkt. 35. On
March 12, 2014, Bown and the Corizon Defendants entered a “Confidential Release
Agreement” (“Release Agreement”). See Burke Aff. at 14, Dkt. 56, Ex. B.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

The Release Agreement states that Bown agrees to release and acquit Releasees
from all possible claims which may arise out of the medical care and treatment of Bown
by Releasees in exchange for the Corizon Defendants compensating Bown $602,782.50.
Id. “Releasees” are set forth as “Corizon Inc., f/k/a/ Correctional Medical Services, Inc.,
Karen Barrett, P.A., and Cassie Richins, L.P.N. . . .” Furthermore, the Release Agreement
states that with respect to the present case, the action “shall be dismissed with prejudice
as to the Releasees only . . . .” Id. at 15 (emphasis added).
Following the dismissal of the State action, Bown filed a timely request to have
this Court lift the stay. Dkt. 37. On July 30, 2014, this Court lifted the stay. Dkt. 39.
Pursuant to the Release Agreement, the Corizon Defendants were dismissed from this
case. Dkt. 42.
Bown then filed the present motion for leave to amend his complaint. IDOC
Defendants contend that in signing the Release Agreement, Bown released all claims
arising out of Bown’s medical treatment on February 19, 2011, and therefore all claims
against IDOC Defendants are similarly released. Defendants argue that because the
Release Agreement rendered the present federal action futile, all amendments to the
initial complaint are likewise futile and should be denied.
ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that a party may amend a
pleading with written consent of the opposing party or with leave of the court, and “[t]he
court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” “[T]he grant of leave to amend

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

the pleadings pursuant to Rule 15(a) is within the discretion of the trial court.” Zenith
Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330 (1971). Leave may be denied
for reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, futility of amendment, or prejudice to the
opposing party. Hurn v. Retirement Fund Trust, 648 F.2d 1252, 1254 (9th Cir. 1981). If
the reasons for denial are not readily apparent or the district court does not state the
reasons, then the court abused its discretion. Hurn, 648 F.2d at 1254, citing Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Here, because the IDOC Defendants are not “Releasees” under the Release
Agreement, the Release Agreement does not release IDOC Defendants from any claims.
In Idaho, settlement agreements are interpreted under the same principles as any other
contractual agreement. Lamprecht v. Jordan, LLC, 139 Idaho 182, 185-86 (2003). Under
the Release Agreement, “Releasees” are unambiguously defined as only the Corizon
Defendants and not the IDOC Defendants. Accordingly, because the release of the claims
applies only to the “Releasees,” it does not apply to the IDOC Defendants. In turn, the
initial complaint against the IDOC Defendants is not rendered futile by the Release
Agreement, and the proposed amendments are not futile. This conclusion is so patently
clear, that the Defendants’ opposition to the Motion to Amend borders on being
frivolous. The Court will grant the motion to amend.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (Dkt. 53) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall
immediately file his amended complaint.

DATED: June 25, 2015

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5