Margarella v. Chamberlain et al
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order; Defendant Dominguez's motion to dismiss 132 is granted. Plaintiff's second-amended complaint is stricken. The operative complaint remains Margarella's first-amended complaint, which was properly filed on January 10, 2019. Dkt. 28. See the attached order for details. Signed by the Honorable Iain D. Johnston on 7/14/2021: (yxp, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Timothy Chamberlain, Betsy
Dominguez, and Wexford Health
Case No. 3:18-cv-50031
Honorable Iain D. Johnston
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
John Margarella brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Wexford
Health Sources, Inc. and two physicians it employs. He alleges that the defendants
were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights. After a Pavey hearing, Magistrate Judge Jensen (on consent)
determined that Margarella had failed to exhaust many of his claims, and that only
one remained, against Dr. Chamberlain. She dismissed all other claims without
prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Dkt. 124, at 8.
In a subsequent court proceeding before Judge Jensen, Plaintiff’s counsel
asked for, and received, clarification regarding his ability to amend the complaint
again. Judge Jensen responded unambiguously: “So you’re going to have to bring a
motion to amend . . . for leave to amend, if that’s something you want to do, and
then both sides can argue their positions on that.” Dkt. 133-1, at 5:7–16. Judge
Jensen expressly told Plaintiff’s counsel that, if he wanted to amend the complaint
again, he was required to move the court for leave to amend. He did not.
Instead, and without moving for leave to amend, Margarella filed his secondamended complaint on February 1, 2021, the last day for amended pleadings
according to the case management order. Dkt. 128. In response, Defendants moved
to dismiss the improperly filed amended complaint. Dkt. 133. Margarella argues
that he was granted leave to amend because the case management order set the
deadline at February 1, 2021, the date he filed his second-amended complaint. He
further asserts that “the Court permitted Plaintiff to amend his initial Complaints”
in the December 14, 2020, hearing. Dkt. 136, at 2. Neither argument is right. Far
from permitting leave to amend, the Court expressly told him he was required to
file a motion to amend, which would then be briefed and argued. Furthermore, a
case management order setting a final deadline for amendments is not an openended authorization to amend the complaint. It does not abrogate the requirements
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. That rule clearly provides that after the
permissive pleading period, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing
party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Furthermore, Judge Jensen’s case management order is equally
unambiguous. The case management order form template on her website explains
the February 1, 2021, deadline as a “deadline for the parties to: (1) file amended
pleadings, add counts or parties, and file third-party complaints; or (2) file a motion
for leave, when required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 13, 14, or 15, to amend pleadings . . .”
Management%20Order%20-%20Form%20(2.26.2021).pdf (emphasis added). Thus,
the Court and the rules were clear. If Margarella wished to amend his complaint
again, he was required to file a motion to do so before February 1, 2021, at which
time the defendants would be permitted to argue in opposition. He failed to follow
those rules, and his second-amended complaint was improper.
Therefore, the Court grants defendants’ motion  and strikes
Margarella’s second-amended complaint. The operative complaint remains
Margarella’s first-amended complaint, which was properly filed on January 10,
2019. Dkt. 28.
Date: July 14, 2021
Honorable Iain D. Johnston
United States District Judge
Northern District of Illinois
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?