Dove v. Quality Correctional Care et al
Filing
25
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING re 23 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint and the court ORDERS Plaintiff to FILE the Amended Complaint on or before 04/04/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 03/30/2018. (sct)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
JULIAN DOVE,
Plaintiff,
v.
QUALITY CORRECTIONAL CARE and
TIM R. TROYER,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO.: 1:17-CV-334-WCL-PRC
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to File First Amended Complaint [DE
23], filed by Plaintiff on March 9, 2018. Plaintiff seeks leave of Court to file a First Amended
Complaint to name Danny Thomas, Jason Hufnagle, Nicole Hufnagle, and Abigaile McLatcher, who
were previously referred to as unnamed medical personnel, as defendants. Defendant Tim R. Troyer
filed a response in opposition. Defendant Quality Correctional Care did not file a response, and
Plaintiff did not file a reply.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a party “may amend its pleading only with
the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave” and that “[t]he court should freely give
leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The United States Supreme Court has
explained that “freely give” means that a court should not deny leave to file an amended complaint
in the absence of any apparent or declared reasons, “such as undue delay, bad faith or 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, futility of
amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Bausch v. Stryker Corp., 630
F.3d 546, 562 (7th Cir. 2010). The decision whether to grant or deny a motion to amend lies within
the sound discretion of the district court. See Campbell v. Ingersoll Milling Mach. Co., 893 F.2d 925,
927 (7th Cir. 1990).
Defendant Troyer’s only objection to the proposed amended complaint is that the original
complaint calls the then-unnamed individuals “medical personnel,” which is how Plaintiff also refers
to the individuals in the instant motion—likely to indicate that the proposed new defendants are the
individuals identified as medical personnel in the original complaint. Troyer represents that these
individuals are not medical personnel and are instead present and former jail officers with the Steuben
County Sheriff’s Department. Troyer notes that the proposed amended complaint does not indicate
that these individuals are medical personnel. Thus, the proposed amended complaint fixes the
misidentification that Troyer argues is grounds to deny the motion to amend. This does not present
grounds on which to deny leave to amend. Given the strong mandate of Rule 15 to “freely give leave”
and the absence of any apparent or declared reason to deny leave to amend, the instant motion will
be granted.
Based on the foregoing and finding that justice so requires, the Court hereby GRANTS
Plaintiff’s Motion to File First Amended Complaint [DE 23] and ORDERS Plaintiff to FILE the
Amended Complaint on or before April 4, 2018.
SO ORDERED this 30th day of March, 2018.
s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
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?