HAYDEN et al v. GREENSBURG COMMUNITY SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS et al

Filing 87

ENTRY granting Defendants' 83 Motion to Amend Answer. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 10/23/2012. (PG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

)
)
)
)
)
)
vs.
)
GREENSBURG COMMUNITY SCHOOL )
CORPORATION, Greensburg Community )
School Board Members, LISA TRESSLER, )
)
in her official and individual capacities,
)
DAVID WEIGEL, in his official and
)
individual capacities, VALERIE
MOORMAN, in her official and individual )
capacities, DAVE MEYER, in his official )
and individual capacities, AL MOORE, in )
his official and individual capacities, TONY )
)
OWENS, in his official and individual
capacities, STEVE TAYLOR, in his official )
)
and individual capacities, Greensburg
Community Schools Superintendent TOM )
)
HUNTER, in his official and individual
capacities, Greensburg Junior High Principal )
)
DAVE STROUSE, in his official and
)
individual capacities, Greensburg Junior
)
High Assistant Principal and Athletic
)
Director DEBBIE SMITH, in her official
)
and individual capacities, Greensburg
)
Varsity Head Boys Basketball Coach
)
STACY MEYER, in his official and
)
individual capacities,
)
Defendants.
PATRICK HAYDEN and MELISSA
HADYEN, on behalf of their Minor Child,
A.H.,
Plaintiffs,

1

1:10-cv-1709-RLY-DML

ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER
Defendants now move the court for leave to amend Paragraph 14 of their Answer
to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint alleges that: “[a]t all
relevant times, each [D]efendant acted under color of state law. Each [I]ndividual
[D]efendant had final policymaking authority for the School District.” (Am. Comp. ¶ 14).
Defendants answered this allegation by stating: “[t]he Defendants admit the allegations
contained in rhetorical paragraph 15 of the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.” (Answer ¶
14). In their Motion for Leave, Defendants allege that they inadvertently admitted that
the Individual Defendants had policymaking authority. Defendants claim that they
drafted their Answer based on the allegations in the original Complaint, which did not
contain the assertion that the Individual Defendants had policymaking authority.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amendments to pleadings, stating that
a court should “freely give leave when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). The
rule reflects a liberal policy towards amendments, and “[a]s a general matter, Rule 15
ordinarily requires that leave to amend be granted once when there is a potentially curable
problem with the complaint or other pleading.” Bausch v. Stryker Corp., 630 F.3d 546,
562 (7th Cir. 2010).
The question of whether the Individual Defendants have policymaking authority
for the School District is an issue of state law. See Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491
U.S. 707, 737 (1989) (affirming that “‘whether a particular official has ‘final
policymaking authority’ is a question of state law’”) (quoting St. Louis v. Proprotnik, 485
2

U.S. 112, 113 (1988) (emphasis in original)); see also Valentina v. Vill. of S. Chicago
Heights, 575 F.3d 664, 675-76 (7th Cir. 2009). Under Indiana law, a school board has
final policymaking authority for a School District. See IND. CODE § 20-26-5-4(18)-(19).
Thus, Defendants are seeking to amend their Answer to comport with Indiana law, and
permitting Defendants leave to amend would not affect the outcome of the case. In fact,
in the parties Joint Stipulation of Facts, the parties agree that: “Indiana law provides that
the School Board is the ultimate decision-maker for the School and the School Board
exercises this authority through a series of policies.” (Joint Stipulation of Facts ¶ 10).
Therefore, the court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend Answer
(Docket # 83) and orders the proposed Amended Answer (Docket # 83-1) filed as of the
date of this entry and made a part of the record.

SO ORDERED this 23rd day of October 2012.

__________________________________

RICHARD L. YOUNG, CHIEF JUDGE
RICHARD L. YOUNG, CHIEF JUDGE
United States District Court
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Southern District of Indiana

Distributed Electronically to Registered Counsel of Record.

3