Deck v. Griffin et al

Filing 60

OPINION AND ORDER denying 59 Motion to Object and Reconsider the Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 8/6/19. (nal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
RICK ALLEN DECK,
Plaintiff,
v.

CAUSE NO.: 3:17-CV-716-PPS-MGG

BRANDON MOSLEY,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Rick Allen Deck, a prisoner without a lawyer, asks that I reconsider my order
denying him leave to amend his complaint to include additional defendants. As
explained previously, this case was filed nearly two years ago, and Deck was granted
leave to proceed only against Officer Mosley on a claim that he was deliberately
indifferent to Deck’s safety when he failed to intervene in an inmate altercation that
occurred on December 29, 2016. Officer Mosley was served, but he failed to appear, so
Deck sought an entry of default against Officer Mosley, and I granted that request.
Thus, this case has now reached the stage where all that remains to be done is to
determine what damages should be awarded to Deck.
At this late stage of the proceedings, “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). While
leave should be freely given when justice requires it, leave can be denied where there is
“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, [and] futility of amendment.” Airborne
Beepers & Video, Inc. v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 499 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2007).
In considering Deck’s proposed amended complaint (ECF 57), I noted that it
alleged essentially the same facts as his two earlier complaints. And, like the earlier
complaints, Deck again names the Indiana Department of Correction as a defendant,
but, as I’ve already explained to Deck (ECF 31, ECF 58), the IDOC is a State agency and
is immune from suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. See Wynn v. Southward, 251
F.3d 588, 592 (7th Cir. 2001). Deck’s proposed amended complaint also sought to add
two defendants who were not personally involved in the incident: Superintendent
Kathy Griffin and Governor Holcomb. I’ve already told Deck (ECF 31, ECF 58), there is
no general respondeat superior liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Burks v. Raemisch, 555
F.3d 592, 594 (7th Cir. 2009). Neither Kathy Griffin nor Governor Holcomb can be held
liable to Deck simply because they oversee operations at the prison or supervise other
correctional officers. Deck explains in his motion to reconsider that he wants to include
the IDOC, Superintendent Griffin, and Governor Holcomb because the damages he has
suffered are likely more than Officer Mosley could be required to pay. That is not a
basis for allowing claims to go forward against defendants who are immune or not
personally involved in the incident.
The proposed amended complaint that Deck tendered states only one viable
claim – the claim against Officer Mosley for which Deck has already obtained an entry
of default. Deck was denied leave to amend because he would achieve nothing by filing

2

the proposed amendment, and because it would result in unnecessary delay. Nothing in
Deck’s motion to reconsider suggests otherwise, and I stand by my ruling.
For these reasons, the court DENIES Rick Allen Deck’s Motion to Object ad
Reconsider the Amended Complaint. (ECF 59.)
SO ORDERED on August 6, 2019.
/s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3