MILLER V. MARBERRY ET AL.
Filing
65
Entry Granting Motion to Amend Complaint and Discussing Motion to Dismiss and Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment - The motion to amend 62 is granted. The amended complaint filed on January 15, 2013, is the operative complaint and is consi dered timely filed. The amended complaint clarifies that Adam Rogers was not an intended defendant in this action. The clerk is directed to terminate Adam Rogers as a defendant on the docket. The defendants' motion to dismiss and alternativ e motion for summary judgment 43 is denied in part. The defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss any claims relating to matters occurring prior to September 8, 2011, on the basis that they are barred by the statute of limitations is deni ed. The defendants shall have fourteen (14) days from the date this Entry is docketed in which to supplement (if necessary) their briefing on the exhaustion issue given the filing of the amended complaint. The plaintiff shall have twenty-eight (28) days from service of any supplemental briefing to respond to the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the exhaustion defense. If no supplement is filed, the plaintiff shall file his response not later than April 1, 2013. The defenda nts shall then have fourteen (14) days in which to file a reply. The defendants' assertion that they are entitled to judgment in their favor on the merits is denied without prejudice as premature. The affirmative defense of failure to exhaust r emains viable, and is the sole outstanding issue in the pending motion, [dkt. 43.] Defendant may, but need not, file a responsive pleading to the amended complaint until the exhaustion issue is resolved. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/27/2013. (RSF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
WILLIAM ALLEN MILLER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
H.J. MARBERRY, Warden, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:11-cv-262-JMS-DKL
Entry Granting Motion to Amend Complaint and Discussing Motion to
Dismiss and Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment
I.
The plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint and the
defendants’ objection thereto have been considered. Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure provides that in circumstances such as those present in
this case, the plaintiff may amend his complaint only with the opposing party’s
written consent or the court’s leave and that the “court should freely give leave
when justice so requires.” Allowing the amended complaint to proceed is in the
interest of justice as it sets forth the plaintiff’s claims more clearly. The amended
complaint will not create undue delay nor will it prejudice the defendants as no new
claims or defendants are added. Accordingly, the motion to amend [62] is granted.
The amended complaint filed on January 15, 2013, is the operative
complaint and is considered timely filed.
The amended complaint clarifies that Adam Rogers was not an intended
defendant in this action. The clerk is directed to terminate Adam Rogers as a
defendant on the docket.
II.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and alternative motion for summary
judgment. This motion asserts that 1) certain claims are barred by the statute of
limitations, 2) the defendants are entitled to the affirmative defense that the
plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as to certain claims
prior to filing this action, and 3) the defendants are entitled to judgment in their
favor on the merits because the plaintiff cannot show that any defendant acted with
deliberate indifference. For the reasons explained in this Entry, the defendants’
motion to dismiss and alternative motion for summary judgment [43] is denied in
part.
Motion to Dismiss
The defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss any claims relating to
matters occurring prior to September 8, 2011, on the basis that they are barred by
the statute of limitations is denied. The amended complaint is only required to
plead enough to show that the claim for relief is plausible. Complaints need not
anticipate defenses such as statute of limitations and attempt to defeat them.
Richards v. Mitcheff, 696 F.3d 635, 637-638 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Gomez v. Toledo,
446 U.S. 635 (1980) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1)). When the Court takes into
consideration Indiana’s constitution, which requires the judiciary to toll time limits
for incapacitated persons, the amended complaint states a claim upon which relief
may be granted. Richards, 696 F.3d at 637 (citing Indiana Const. Art. I, § 12;
Herron v. Anigbo, 897 N.E.2d 444, 451, 453 (Ind. 2008); Fort Wayne v. Cameron, 267
Ind. 329, 370 N.E.2d 338, 341 (1977)). Because the amended complaint is sufficient
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the motion to dismiss is denied.
This denial does not preclude the defendants from pursuing their statute of
limitations defense through the filing of a motion for summary judgment.
Motion for Summary Judgment
The defendants seek summary judgment on their affirmative defense that the
plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as to certain claims
prior to filing this action. This issue must be resolved first. Perez v. Wis. Dep't of
Corr., 182 F.3d 532, 536 (7th Cir. 1999)(“The statute [requiring administrative
exhaustion] can function properly only if the judge resolves disputes about its
application before turning to any other issue in the suit.”). The defendants shall
have fourteen (14) days from the date this Entry is docketed in which to
supplement (if necessary) their briefing on the exhaustion issue given the filing of
the amended complaint. The plaintiff shall have twenty-eight (28) days from
service of any supplemental briefing to respond to the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment on the exhaustion defense. If no supplement is filed, the
plaintiff shall file his response not later than April 1, 2013. The defendants shall
then have fourteen (14) days in which to file a reply.
The defendants’ assertion that they are entitled to judgment in their favor on
the merits is denied without prejudice as premature. The Seventh Circuit has
held that “the court must not proceed to render a substantive decision until it has
first considered” the issue of exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Perez, 182 F.3d at 536. “The statute gives prisons and their
officials a valuable entitlement—the right not to face a decision on the merits—
which courts must respect if a defendant chooses to invoke it.” Id. Here Defendants
seek to have it both ways: invoke failure to exhaust and pursue merits relief. The
Court finds such dueling strategies unworkable. In this case, the invocation of a
failure to exhaust defense resulted in the November 13, 2012, Entry which stayed
discovery except as to the issue of exhaustion and statute of limitations. To require
the plaintiff to respond (at this time) to the motion for summary judgment attacking
the merits of his claims is inconsistent with this court’s orders, the Prison Litigation
Reform Act and the spirit of Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.
The affirmative defense of failure to exhaust remains viable, and is the sole
outstanding issue in the pending motion, [dkt. 43.] Defendant may, but need not,
file a responsive pleading to the amended complaint until the exhaustion issue is
resolved.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
02/27/2013
Date: __________________
Distribution:
WILLIAM ALLEN MILLER
77436-012
ALLENWOOD U.S. PENITENTIARY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. BOX 3000
WHITE DEER, PA 17887
Jeffrey L. Hunter
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Email: jeff.hunter@usdoj.gov
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
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?