Leach v. Shaffer et al

Filing 56

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court DENIES without prejudice as moot the defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 51 ), GRANTS Leach's motion for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint 53 , ORDERS that dispositive motions are due by November 9, 2018 and VACATES the current final pretrial conference and trial dates, which will be rescheduled by separate order. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 9/14/2018. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JIMMY W. LEACH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-634-JPG-RJD

CHET SHAFFER, REX ROBERTS and
RICHARD HARTGRAVES,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in
plaintiff Jimmy W. Leach’s case alleging failure to provide adequate medical care when he was a
pretrial detainee in the Franklin County Jail (Doc. 53). In their motion, the defendants argue
that plaintiff Leach has insufficient evidence to prove that they were deliberately indifferent to
his serious medical needs. They specifically rely on the Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference standard articulated in Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994), which at the
time had been routinely applied through the Fourteenth Amendment to the medical claims of
pretrial detainees. See Pittman v. County of Madison, 746 F.3d 766, 775 (7th Cir. 2014).
However, on August 10, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in Miranda v.
County of Lake, No. 17-1603, 2018 WL 3796482, at *11 (7th Cir. Aug. 10, 2018), that the
standard applicable to pretrial detainees is objective unreasonableness rather than deliberate
indifference. As a consequence, the arguments in the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment are no longer apposite. The Court will therefore find the motion moot but will give
the defendants a reasonable opportunity to file a new summary judgment motion addressing the
viability of Leach’s claims under the standard announced in Miranda.

The Court also addresses Leach’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint
asserting a state law claim for spoliation of evidence (Doc. 53). Apparently, this potential cause
of action only came to light after the defendants failed to locate and produce certain basic pieces
of evidence requested in discovery such as, for example, an incident report prepared by
defendant Chet Shaffer regarding his contact with Leach before Leach was transported to the
hospital on March 21, 2016. The defendants have responded to the motion (Doc. 54), arguing
that the request to amend comes too late and allowing amendment would unnecessarily delay the
resolution of this case.
Rule 15(a) governs amendments to pleadings. A plaintiff may amend its pleading once
as a matter of course within 21 days of serving it or within 21 days after service of a response or
a motion to dismiss, for a more definite statement or to strike. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).
Otherwise, a plaintiff may amend his pleading only with the opposing parties’ written consent,
which the plaintiff has not obtained, or leave of court, which the Court should freely give when
justice requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

Although the text of the rule has changed in recent

years, the rule still “reflects a policy that cases should generally be decided on the merits and not
on the basis of technicalities.” McCarthy v. PaineWebber, Inc., 127 F.R.D. 130, 132 (N.D. Ill.
1989). Generally, the decision whether to grant a party leave to amend the pleadings is a matter
left to the discretion of the district court. Orix Credit Alliance v. Taylor Mach. Works, 125 F.3d
468, 480 (7th Cir. 1997). A court should allow amendment of a pleading except where there is
undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue
of allowance of the amendment, or futility of the amendment. Bausch v. Stryker Corp., 630
F.3d 546, 562 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Airborne Beepers & Video, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 499
2

F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2007)).
This case is set for trial on October 1, 2018. Ordinarily, the Court would refuse to allow
an amendment of the complaint to add a new claim so close to the trial date because it would
necessarily require a continuance of the trial. However, in light of the fact that it is allowing a
new round of summary judgment motions, which will require a continuance of the trial anyway,
and the fact that the spoliation claim did not come to light until the plaintiff conducted discovery
in this case, the Court finds justice will be served by allowing Leach to amend his complaint.
Accordingly, the Court will grant his motion for leave to amend.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court:
•

DENIES without prejudice as moot the defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(Doc. 51);

•

GRANTS Leach’s motion for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint, which was
tendered to the Court with his motion (Doc. 53). Leach shall electronically file the
Second Amended Complaint by September 20, 2018;

•

ORDERS that dispositive motions are due by November 9, 2018. Should the parties
feel they need additional discovery, they may seek leave from Magistrate Judge Daly.
Additional discovery, if allowed, will be strictly limited to the new spoliation claim
absent extraordinary circumstances; and

•

VACATES the current final pretrial conference and trial dates, which will be
rescheduled by separate order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 14, 2018
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

3