Morris v. Baldwin et al

Filing 52

ORDER GRANTING 50 MOTION for Leave to File filed by Barry Morris. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file Plaintiff's proposed complaint as the First Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 3/29/2018. (ely)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BARRY MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN BALDWIN, et. al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-1033-DRH-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint (Doc. 50). Defendants did not file an objection. For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections, filed this
lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the
Rehabilitation Act (“RA”). Plaintiff alleges Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”) is not ADA
compliant and that his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at the facility.
Following threshold review, Plaintiff is currently proceeding on the following claims:
Count 1 – IDOC and Baldwin failed to provide reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff’s
disability in violation of the ADA and RA;
Count 2 – Baldwin, Lashbrook, Hawkins, Walls, and Wexford were deliberately
indifferent to Plaintiff’s request for accommodation and treatment of his disabilities in
violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint to clarify details of the case and to clarify how
defendants violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint does not
add new claims.
Page 1 of 2

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." The Seventh Circuit maintains
a liberal attitude toward the amendment of pleadings "so that cases may be decided on the merits
and not on the basis of technicalities." Stern v. U.S. Gypsum, Inc., 547 F.2d 1329, 1334 (7th Cir.
1977). The Circuit recognizes that "the complaint merely serves to put the defendant on notice
and is to be freely amended or constructively amended as the case develops, as long as
amendments do not unfairly surprise or prejudice the defendant." Toth v. USX Corp., 883 F.2d
1297, 1298 (7th Cir. 1989); see also Winger v. Winger, 82 F.3d 140, 144 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure create [a system] in which the complaint does not fix the
plaintiff's rights but may be amended at any time to conform to the evidence.") (quotation
omitted). A court may also deny a party leave to amend if there is undue delay, dilatory motive or
futility. Guise v. BMW Mortgage, LLC, 377 F.3d 795, 801 (7th Cir. 2004).
The Amended Complaint clarifies how Defendants allegedly violated Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights; it does not alter the claims or parties to the case. Plaintiff’s request to amend
the complaint is timely and does not cause undue delay. The case is not yet set for trial.
Defendants do not object to the motion to amend and will not be unfairly surprised or prejudiced.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint
(Doc. 50) is GRANTED.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file Plaintiff's proposed

complaint as the First Amended Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 29, 2018

s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 2 of 2