Daniel v. Corizon Health, Inc. et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED: Daniel's Motion to Amend 25 is GRANTED. Daniel shall have 7 days to file his Amended Complaint as outlined in Docket 25. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO DARIAN SHAYNE DANIEL, Case No. 1:17-cv-00409-DCN Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC., a foreign corporation; JANET MITCHELL, PA, an employee of Corizon; JOHN DOES 1 through 14 (Unnamed Correction Officers); and JOHN DOES 15 through 20 (Unnamed Corizon Medical Providers), Defendants. I. INTRODUCTION Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Darian Daniel’s Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. Dkt. 25. Having reviewed the record and briefs, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, the Court will address the motion without oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(2)(ii). For the reasons outlined below, the Court finds good cause to GRANT the Motion. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that, once a responsive pleading has been served, a party may amend its pleading “only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, when a party files a motion to amend after the Court’s case management deadline to amend has passed—as is the case here—district courts in the Ninth Circuit apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), followed by a Rule 15(a) analysis. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Under Rule 16(b), the movant must demonstrate good cause to amend. Id. at 609. III. ANALYSIS In this case, the deadline to amend pleadings or join parties was April 4, 2018, 2018. Dkt. 20. Because Daniel filed this Motion after the deadline, the Court must utilize the higher “good cause” standard of Rule 16 to determine if Daniel can amend. Lengthy analysis is unnecessary, however, as the parties are essentially in agreement on this Motion. First, none of the named Defendants filed opposition to the pending Motion.1 Second, it appears all parties knew these amendments would be necessary from the outset of this lawsuit. Daniel originally filed this case with named “John Doe” defendants 1 Under Idaho Local Rules, if a party elects not to file a response to a moving party’s Motion, “such . . . may be deemed to constitute a consent to the . . . granting of said motion.” Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(e)(1). MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2 because he did not know the identities of many of the defendants. He requested information from the Idaho Department of Corrections (“IDOC”). IDOC has provided Daniel with all necessary information and Daniel’s Amended Complaint now identifies each defendant associated with IDOC and the events at issue in this case. The Court finds that Daniel has met the good cause standard outlined in Rule 16 and will GRANT the Motion. IV. ORDER IT IS ORDERED: 1. Daniel’s Motion to Amend (Dkt. 25) is GRANTED. 2. Daniel shall have 7 days to file his Amended Complaint as outlined in Docket 25. DATED: September 21, 2018 _________________________ David C. Nye U.S. District Court Judge MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

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?