Gambrel v. Twin Falls County et al

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION TO AMEND plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on defendants' affirmative defenses is DENIED without prejudice. Defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's spoliation claim is DENIED AS MOOT without prejudice to later arguments concerning appropriate sanctions for spoliation of evidence. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within seven days of the d ate this Order is signed. The parties shall file a stipulation setting forth an amended discovery deadline and amended dispositive motions deadline, or a joint statement that they cannot agree on those dates, within fourteen days of the date this Order is signed. Signed by Judge William B. Shubb. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF IDAHO

10
----oo0oo----

11
12

KODY GAMBREL,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

CIV. NO. 1:12-369 WBS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION
TO AMEND

v.
TWIN FALLS COUNTY; ANDREW
HEIKKILA, an individual;
BRADLEY TERRY, an individual;
STACEY THOMAS, an individual;
JIMMY ADAMS, an individual;
and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants.

20
21
22

----oo0oo---Plaintiff Kody Gambrel brought this civil rights action

23

against defendant Twin Falls County and several defendants in

24

their individual capacities arising out of injuries he suffered

25

as an inmate at the Twin Falls County Jail.

26

for leave to file an amended Complaint.

Plaintiff now moves

27

Generally, a motion to amend is subject to Federal Rule

28

of Civil Procedure 15(a), which provides that “[t]he court should
1

1

freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”

2

Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

3

entered pursuant to Rule 16(b), the more restrictive provisions

4

of that subsection requiring a showing of ‘good cause’ for

5

failing to amend prior to the deadline in that order apply.”

6

Robinson v. Twin Falls Highway Dist., 233 F.R.D. 670, 672 (D.

7

Idaho 2006) (Winmill, J.); accord Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

8

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

9

liberal amendment policy, which focuses on the bad faith of the

Fed. R.

“However, once a scheduling order has been

“Unlike Rule 15(a)’s

10

party seeking an amendment and the prejudice to the opposing

11

party, the ‘good cause’ standard set forth in Rule 16 primarily

12

focuses on the diligence of the party requesting the amendment.”

13

Sadid v. Vailas, 943 F. Supp. 2d 1125, 1138 (D. Idaho. 2013)

14

(Winmill, J.) (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607).

15

Plaintiff’s amended complaint differs from his initial

16

complaint in five basic respects: (1) it names Sherriff Tom

17

Carter in his official capacity; (2) it indicates whether the six

18

individual defendants are sued in their individual and/or

19

official capacities; (3) it omits the Doe defendants named in the

20

initial Complaint; (4) it no longer includes state-law negligence

21

or spoliation claims; and (5) it includes four separate claims

22

for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

23

1) with Proposed First Am. Compl. (“Proposed FAC”) (Docket No.

24

21-4).)

25

(See Defs.’ Opp’n at 4 (Docket No. 22).)

(Compare Compl. (Docket No.

Defendants do not object to the first four amendments.

26

Defendants oppose plaintiff’s amended complaint insofar

27

as it separates the Section 1983 claim into four separate claims:

28

an excessive force claim; a deliberate indifference claim; a
2

1

failure-to-train claim; and a claim that Carter ratified the

2

unlawful acts of his subordinates in his capacity as a final

3

policymaker for Twin Falls County.

4

209.)

5

claim and ratification claim rely on “new theories which were not

6

fully explored during discovery.”

7

(See Proposed FAC ¶¶ 178-

In particular, defendants object that the failure-to-train

(Defs.’ Opp’n at 4.)

Although defendants contend that the timing of the

8

amended complaint shows a lack of diligence, plaintiff indicates

9

that these amendments could not have been filed earlier because

10

they reflect information that plaintiff obtained from depositions

11

that it conducted “up until the discovery cutoff date.”

12

Mem. at 3 (Docket No. 21-2).) As Judge Lodge has noted, this is a

13

textbook example of “good cause.”

14

Civ. No. 3:08-552 EJL CWD, 2010 WL 5110083, at *5 (D. Idaho Dec.

15

7, 2010) (“If a party does not learn of information necessary to

16

amend its complaint until after the scheduling order deadline, no

17

amount of diligence would allow the party to seek amendment

18

before the expiration of the deadline.”).

19

correctly note that plaintiff did not seek leave to amend until

20

after the discovery cutoff date had passed, they cite no

21

authority for the proposition that a proposed amendment filed

22

after the discovery cutoff date is per se not diligent.

23

(Pl.’s

See, e.g., Mays v. Stoble,

And while defendants

Defendants also contend that they would be prejudiced

24

by amendment because plaintiff’s failure-to-train and

25

ratification claims are new theories of which they lacked notice

26

and on which they did not conduct discovery.

27

5.)

28

with a heading, in bold lettering, reading “Twin Falls County Is

(Defs.’ Opp’n at

However, plaintiff’s initial Complaint did include a section

3

1

Liable.”

2

County was under the “direction and control” of Sherriff Tom

3

Carter, (id. ¶ 166), that the conduct detailed in the complaint

4

was a “product of the policies or customs implemented by Twin

5

Falls County,” (id. ¶ 167), and that these policies or customs

6

included, inter alia, “failure to appropriately train jail

7

personnel,” (id. ¶ 169).

8
9

(Compl. at 13.)

That section alleges that Twin Falls

At a bare minimum, those allegations placed defendants
on notice of the potential need to take discovery on whether Twin

10

Falls County failed to adequately train its employees, whether

11

those employees’ conduct was pursuant to an official custom or

12

practice, and how Carter and other employees “direct[ed] and

13

control[led]” their subordinates.

14

even if the initial Complaint did not use the term

15

“ratification,” it still alleged the essential elements of a

16

ratification claim--namely, that Carter, an official with final

17

policymaking authority, approved of the actions of subordinates

18

who were subject to his direction and control.

19

Louis v. Prapotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 128 (1988).

20

information relating to Carter’s alleged ratification of the

21

behavior of his subordinates is presumably within defendants’

22

control, they would not be prejudiced by plaintiff’s assertion of

23

a ratification theory even if plaintiff had not alleged the

24

elements of that theory in the initial Complaint.

25

(See id. ¶ 166.)

Further,

See City of St.
And because any

Accordingly, because plaintiff has demonstrated “good

26

cause” to amend his Complaint, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), the

27

court will grant his motion for leave to file an amended

28

Complaint.
4

1

As the court indicated at oral argument, plaintiff’s

2

proposed amendments may impact several summary judgment motions

3

that are currently pending.

4

a state-law spoliation claim in his amended Complaint, the court

5

will deny as moot defendant’s motion for summary judgment on that

6

claim, (see Docket No. 24), and will do so without prejudice to a

7

later motion seeking a jury instruction related to spoliation or

8

other discovery sanctions.

9

argument to withdraw without prejudice its motion for summary

Because plaintiff no longer asserts

In addition, plaintiff agreed at oral

10

judgment concerning defendant’s affirmative defenses.

11

Docket No. 26.)

12

without prejudice to an analogous motion based on defendant’s

13

answer to the amended Complaint.

14

(See

The court will therefore deny that motion

Defendants have also moved for summary judgment on

15

plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim.

(Docket No. 23.)

16

Plaintiff’s proposed amended Complaint asserts a deliberate

17

indifference claim only against the individual-capacity

18

defendants, and not against Carter or Twin Falls County.

19

argument, the parties agreed that the pending summary judgment

20

motion is applicable to that claim, but disputed whether it is

21

applicable to the failure-to-train or ratification claims to the

22

extent that those claims are predicated on deliberate

23

indifference to plaintiff’s medical needs.

24

judgment motion only concerns the claim as it is pled against the

25

individual-capacity defendants, the court’s resolution of that

26

motion would not preclude defendants from bringing a later motion

27

for summary judgment on plaintiff’s ratification and failure-to-

28

train claims.

At oral

Because the summary

The court will therefore consider the pending
5

1

motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s deliberate

2

indifference claim, and will inform the parties if it believes

3

that oral argument will be of material assistance.

4

In light of its decision to grant leave to amend, the

5

court will grant defendants leave to conduct additional discovery

6

and to file additional motions on plaintiff’s failure-to-train

7

and ratification claims.

8

agree upon an amended discovery deadline and dispositive motions

9

deadline, or in the event they cannot agree upon the scope or

10

extent of additional discovery necessary to allow defendant to

11

respond to the new allegations, either plaintiff or defendants

12

may request that the court extend or define the terms of the

13

discovery and/or dispositive motion deadline.

14

In the event that the parties cannot

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for

15

leave to file an amended complaint be, and the same hereby is,

16

GRANTED.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for

18

summary judgment on defendants’ affirmative defenses be, and the

19

same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice.

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion for

21

summary judgment on plaintiff’s spoliation claim be, and the same

22

hereby is, DENIED AS MOOT without prejudice to later arguments

23

concerning appropriate sanctions for spoliation of evidence.

24

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within seven

25

days of the date this Order is signed.

26

stipulation setting forth an amended discovery deadline and

27

amended dispositive motions deadline, or a joint statement that

28

they cannot agree on those dates, within fourteen days of the
6

The parties shall file a

1

date this Order is signed.

2

Dated:

April 22, 2014

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7