Sadid v. Idaho State University et al

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 23 Motion to Amend 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 cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

HABIB SADID, an individual,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 4:11-cv-00103-BLW

v.
ARTHUR VAILAS, RICHARD
JACOBSEN, GRAHAM GARNER,
DAVID BEARD, and JOHN/JANE
DOES I through X,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Dkt. 23). The Court
has determined that oral argument would not significantly assist the decisional process,
therefore it will consider the motion on the briefing without a hearing. Having
considered the parties’ pleadings and being familiar with the record, the Court will grant
the Motion as more fully expressed below.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Habib Sadid was a tenured associate professor in Idaho State University’s
(ISU) Civil Engineering Department. On October 30, 2009, Sadid was terminated by
ISU president Arthur Vailas. Vailas terminated Sadid on recommendation by Dean of

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

ISU’s College of Engineering Richard Jacobsen, despite the finding by a majority of the
Faculty Grievance Appeals Board, of insufficient evidence warranting dismissal. Compl.
¶¶ 67, 71-72, Dkt. 1. The principal reason cited for Sadid’s termination was that he
“posed a safety threat to the health and welfare of the students and faculty of ISU and the
security of ISU.” Id. ¶¶ 60, 75, 77.
Sadid initiated the action here on March 15, 2011, against ISU and Defendants
Vailas and Jacobsen in their official and individual capacities, alleging violation of 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and denial of Sadid’s First Amendment, Substantive and Procedural Due
Process and Equal Protection rights, and various state law claims, including defamation.
Compl. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which this Court granted in
part, by dismissing claims against ISU and named Defendants in their official capacities,
and denied in part, by allowing claims against named Defendants in their individual
capacities to remain.
On August 11, 2011, prior to the deadline to amend pleadings, Sadid filed a
motion to amend his complaint to add Defendants Graham Garner and David Beard,
formerly identified as John Does. Mem in Support of Mot., Dkt. 23-1 at 2.
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice
so requires.” Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008).
The district court has sole discretion in deciding whether to grant leave to amend, on
consideration of whether there has been “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive . . . ,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice
. . ., [and] futility of amendment.” Id., citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Prejudice is the most important factor to consider in this analysis. Jackson v. Bank of
Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990)(citation omitted). In Jackson, the Ninth
Circuit found undue prejudice where proposed amendments added claims raising new
legal theories. Id. at 1388.
DISCUSSION
Defendants cite a number of reasons why Sadid’s motion should be denied. First,
Defendants argue that Sadid has failed to identify what new facts support the addition of
the two new defendants, Graham Garner and David Beard. Sadid’s motion indicates that
Garner and Beard were among those identified in the initial complaint as John Does.
Mem. In Support of Mot., Dkt. 23-1 at 2. In the proposed Amended Complaint, Sadid
claims that Garner made false statements about threats allegedly made by Sadid. Prop.
Am. Compl., Dkt. 23-2 ¶ 89. The proposed Amended Complaint also identifies Beard as
the minority vote from the Faculty Grievance Appeals Board, who dissented from the
Board’s finding of insufficient evidence to support Sadid’s dismissal. Id. ¶ 85. The
Court finds no basis to deny amendment for lack of factual allegations.
Defendants also argue that the motion to amend complaint is unduly and
unreasonably delayed. However, it is undisputed that Sadid filed his motion well before
the deadline to amend pleadings. Case Management Order, Dkt. 21 (deadline was
11/10/11, three months before the Motion to Amend was filed). Also, Sadid’s motion to

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

amend was filed the day after the Court’s decision on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Order, Dkt. 22. As Sadid states in his pleadings, the Amended Complaint is intended, at
least in part, to update claims in light of the Court’s Decision (Dkt. 22) on Motion to
Dismiss. See Dkts. 23-1 at 3; 31 at 2. The Court thus rejects Defendants’ argument that
Sadid’s motion to amend was unduly delayed.
Further, Defendants assert prejudice. However, Defendants fail to indicate how
Defendants are prejudiced. The Court finds no basis for prejudice, especially since the
Motion to Amend is timely. The Court therefore rejects this argument as well.
Finally, Defendants contend that Sadid’s proposed amended complaint would be
futile, and are otherwise contrary to the Supreme Court’s holdings in Twombly and Iqbal.
The Court will entertain a motion to dismiss if and when such motion is filed. However,
the Court finds that Sadid has satisfied the standard for a motion to amend and will allow
it.
ORDER
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint
(Dkt. 23) is GRANTED.

DATED: December 9, 2011

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4