Daniel v. Corizon Health, Inc. et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
DARIAN SHAYNE DANIEL,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00409-DCN
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
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
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.
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
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
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.
IT IS ORDERED:
Daniel’s Motion to Amend (Dkt. 25) is GRANTED.
Daniel shall have 7 days to file his Amended Complaint as outlined in
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?