McKinney v. Franklin County Illinois et al

Filing 143

ORDER DENYING 135 MOTION to Amend/Correct 83 Amended Complaint filed by Mary McKinney. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 6/12/2018. (nmf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARY MCKINNEY, as Administrator of
the Estate of R.E., deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANKLIN COUNTY ILLINOIS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:15-cv-1044-SMY-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended
Complaint (Doc. 135). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff Mary McKinney filed this lawsuit on September 22, 2015 as Administrator of the
Estate of R.E., deceased. Following the filing of her First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff is
proceeding on the following claims:
Count 1:

Violation of civil rights (42 U.S.C. §1983) against Defendants Franklin
County, Crocker, Abell, Freeman, Sanders, Thomas, Lynch, Mendoza,
Bechelli, Upchurch, and Stewart;

Count 2:

Violation of civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983) against Defendants CHC and/or
Defendant Correct Care;

Count 3:

Violation of civil rights (42 U.S.C. §1983) against Defendant Little;

Count 4:

Violation of civil rights (42 U.S.C. §1983) against Defendant Vipin Shah,
M.D.; and

Count 5:

Wrongful death – survivorship against all Defendants.

The deadline for amendment of pleadings was set in the Court’s initial scheduling and
discovery order as July 15, 2016 (Doc. 63-1). Despite being granted numerous extensions of the
Page 1 of 4

scheduling and discovery order, no extensions of the deadline to amend the complaint were sought
or granted (see, e.g., Docs. 94, 109, 111, 117, 120, 128, and 131); however, Plaintiff was granted
leave to file an amended complaint on September 23, 2016.
On March 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed the motion now before the Court seeking leave to file a
second amended complaint (Doc. 135). Although Plaintiff indicated it had been discussed and
agreed to by counsel for all Defendants, the State of Illinois Defendants filed a memorandum in
opposition arguing the proposed amendments are futile (Doc. 137). Plaintiff filed a reply to
Defendants’ opposition brief that has been considered by the Court1 (Doc. 138).
Plaintiff asks for leave to file a second amended complaint to conform the pleadings to the
evidence, plead absence of immunities, and to correct typographical errors. The proposed second
amended complaint does not set forth any new claims or identify any additional defendants.
Rather, the bulk of the proposed amendment appears to focus on the inclusion of more than twenty
pages of additional factual allegations.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a party may amend a pleading, and that
leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires; however, “courts in their sound
discretion may deny a proposed amendment if the moving party has unduly delayed in filing the
motion, if the opposing party would suffer undue prejudice, or if the pleading is futile.” Soltys v.
Costello, 520 F.3d 737, 743 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Campania Mgmt. Co. v. Rooks, Pitts & Poust,
290 F.3d 843, 848-49 (7th Cir. 2002)).
Although it is not apparent that Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint is futile, as argued
by Defendants (as it does not set forth any new claims or name any new defendants), the Court is
1

For clarification, the Court received two proposed second amended complaints from Plaintiff. Per Plaintiff’s reply
brief, the Court has only considered, and its discussion herein is focused only on, the proposed second amended
complaint submitted on March 28, 2018.

Page 2 of 4

not persuaded that justice requires the Court to grant Plaintiff’s motion and that prejudice would
result if it were not granted.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “shall be construed,

administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 1. In addition, where there is a burden to the
judicial system, the Seventh Circuit recognizes that a court may deny a motion to amend “even if
the amendment would cause no hardship at all to the opposing party.” Perrian v. O’Grady, 958
F.2d 192, 195 (7th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). Here, Plaintiff’s motion to amend came well
over a year after the deadline for amendment of pleadings and just months before the dispositive
motion filing deadline and trial date. Indeed, at the time of filing, this matter had been pending
for two-and-a-half years. As such, it appears that granting leave to amend at this late date may
require a substantial modification of the current scheduling order and trial date as it is likely
Defendants would need additional time to file dispositive motions if Plaintiff is allowed to amend.
The Court has already continued the trial date in this matter no less than three times and Plaintiff
has already been allowed to amend her complaint to name additional defendants. Plaintiff has not
provided a sufficient justification for her late request and, while the Court is mindful that discovery
was ongoing until May 25, 2018, it is not apparent that the factual bases for her new allegations
were only recently discovered. Moreover, denying Plaintiff leave to amend would not necessarily
affect her ability to present the additional evidence she gleaned during discovery at trial.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Doc.
135) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 12, 2018

Page 3 of 4

s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 4 of 4