Cheatham v. Dedeke et al
Filing
250
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 234 Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell on 10/22/2024. Mailed to pro se party Ryan Christopher Cheatham by regular mail. (msb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
RYAN CHRISTOPHER CHEATHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 22-3132-TC-ADM
ANDREW DEDEKE, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on pro se plaintiff Ryan Christopher Cheatham’s
(“Cheatham”) motion for leave to amend his complaint, which is titled “Motion for Leave to
Amend Third Complaint.” (ECF 234.) By way of this motion, Cheatham seeks leave to amend
his complaint for two reasons: (1) to dismiss defendant Jana Harris and (2) to attach additional
documents as exhibits to his complaint because they contain new facts and evidence he has
received during discovery that support his claims. (Id.) Defendants Judith Beck and Andrew
Dedeke oppose the motion. (ECF 241, 245.) For the reasons discussed below, the court grants
Cheatham’s motion.
Cheathham’s first reason for moving to amend is now moot. On October 21, 2024, the
parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to defendant Harris only. (ECF 246.)
As a result, Cheatham’s proposed amendment is not necessary to dismiss Harris from the case.
A.
Cheatham Has Demonstrated Good Cause for the Late Amendment
The court next turns to Cheatham’s second reason for seeking to amend his complaint—to
supplement his allegations in his complaint using documents obtained during discovery that he
believes support his claims and/or contradict the positions of the remaining defendants. The
deadline for motions to amend the pleadings was May 29, 2024. (ECF 100, at 2.) Where, as here,
the scheduling order deadline for a motion to amend the pleadings has expired, the party seeking
leave to amend must (1) demonstrate good cause for modifying the scheduling order under FED.
R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4), and (2) satisfy the standards for amendment under FED. R. CIV. P 15(a).
Gorsuch, Ltd., B.C. v. Wells Fargo Nat. Bank Ass’n, 771 F.3d 1230, 1240 (10th Cir. 2014).
Whether to grant a motion to amend is within the court’s sound discretion. Id.
To establish good cause under Rule 16(b)(4), the moving party must show that it could not
have met the motion to amend deadline despite “diligent efforts.” Husky Ventures, Inc. v. B55
Invs., Ltd., 911 F.3d 1000, 1020 (10th Cir. 2018). Here, Cheatham’s Third Amended Complaint,
filed on July 18, added Dedeke to the case as a defendant. (ECF 157.) Cheatham promptly issued
written discovery requests to defendant Dedeke on July 24 and/or July 29, 2024. (ECF 152, 154.)
On August 1, Dedeke filed a motion to dismiss the claims against him pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (ECF 157, 158.) Dedeke’s motion argues that “Cheatham
fails to allege a constitutional violation against Dedeke for his claim premised on a failure to
schedule surgery for Cheatham’s injured finger” because Cheatham did not allege (1) Dedeke was
personally involved in the constitutional violation of denying him medical care, (2) a sufficient
causal connection between Dedeke and the constitutional violation, or (3) that Dedeke acted with
the requisite state of mind. (ECF 158, at 6-8.) Dedeke served his responses to Cheatham’s
discovery requests on August 27 (ECF 176) and supplemented his responses on October 8 (ECF
235). The Second Amended Scheduling Order entered on August 19 set a deadline for all
discovery requests to be served by September 30. (ECF 172.)
The court finds that Cheatham has demonstrated good cause because he could not have met
the May 29 motion to amend deadline, given that Dedeke was not added back to the case as a
2
defendant until July 18. And Cheatham made diligent efforts to draft and serve discovery requests
on Dedeke shortly after he re-entered the case. Cheatham also appears to have diligently sought
discovery from the other defendants after the stay of discovery was lifted following the district
judge’s ruling on Wardrop and Dedeke’s initial motion to dismiss. (See ECF 106, 117, 132, 13738, 159, 238 (relating to Beck), ECF 76, 106, 155, 170, 175 (relating to Wardrop), ECF 140, 196
(relating to Harris).) Cheatham now seeks to amend his complaint to supplement it with “new
evidence [that] came to light in the month of September 2024.” (ECF 234-1, at 8.) Specifically,
Cheatham seeks to supplement his complaint with “Exhibit A,” which is an “Affidavit of Jana
Harris, DNP” that Cheatham alleges shows who actually had authority to schedule surgery for
Cheatham and other inmates; “Exhibit 31,” which is Defendant Jana Harris, DNP’s Answers and
Objections to Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories that Cheatham alleges demonstrates Dedeke’s
personal involvement in not scheduling Cheatham for surgery; and “Exhibit 27,” which is
Defendant Wardrop’s Answers to Plaintiff’s Amended Interrogatories that Cheatham claims
shows Beck had the power to make the decision to schedule surgery, as well as Beck and Dedeke
having a conversation about Cheatham’s injury and surgery recommendations. (Id. at 8-9; ECF
234-2.) Cheatham also seeks to amend his complaint to attach Exhibits 13, 20, 39, 40, 41, and 42
to show Dedeke, Beck, and Wardrop’s personal involvement in decisions regarding Cheatham’s
medical care and scheduling of surgery, which Cheatham says contradicts some statements
previously made by Beck. (See ECF 237 (attaching Exhibits 13, 20, 39, 40); ECF 242 (attaching
Exhibits 41 and 42); see also ECF 248.)
The court agrees with Cheatham that he should be allowed to amend his complaint to assert
additional factual allegations and attach exhibits he believes support his claims and/or contradict
the positions taken by defendants, especially given that Cheatham faces dismissal of his claims
3
against Dedeke for failing to allege that Dedeke was personally involved in decisions not to
schedule surgery for Cheatham’s injured finger, a sufficient causal connection, or the requisite
state of mind. For Cheatham to withstand Dedeke’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), his complaint must have enough allegations of fact, taken as true, “to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Put another way, Cheatham’s complaint must offer sufficient factual allegations to “raise a right
to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555. Here, Cheatham seeks to amend his complaint
to allege factual allegations that he hopes make his claim plausible on its face. Whether his
additional factual allegations are sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level” is
not for the undersigned to decide, as that is within the province of the district judge. However,
Cheatham has shown that he should at least be given the opportunity to amend his complaint to
defend against Dedeke’s motion to dismiss.
B.
Amendment Is Allowed Under Rule 15(a)(2)
The court next considers whether to grant leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2), which
directs the court to “freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” In freely allowing
leave to amend, the court provides litigants with “the maximum opportunity for each claim to be
decided on its merits rather than on procedural niceties.” Warnick v. Cooley, 895 F.3d 746, 755
(10th Cir. 2018) (quoting Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006)). A
court should only withhold leave to amend for 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, [or]
futility of [the] amendment.” U.S. ex rel. Ritchie v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 558 F.3d 1161, 1166
(10th Cir. 2009) (alteration in original) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
4
Although the court is disinclined to allow any amendment that could have been sought
earlier and/or that appears likely to further protract the resolution of this case (as was the case the
last time Cheatham sought to amend his complaint), the court finds the currently proposed
amendment will not add significant delay to this case or prejudice the defendants by expanding
the scope of the case. Cheatham did not unduly delay in seeking to amend to attach these exhibits
to his proposed amended complaint after he received this information in discovery. Nor would the
current defendants be prejudiced because Cheatham’s proposed amendment includes attachments
to the complaint that consist of documents that were produced in discovery or filed in this litigation
that are likely to be used as evidence at a later stage of the case, whether in dispositive-motion
practice or at trial.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff Ryan Christopher Cheatham’s Motion for
Leave to Amend Third Complaint (ECF 234) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to file the fourth amended
complaint (ECF 234-1) as a separate docket entry and attach the exhibits Cheatham filed at ECF
234-2, ECF 237, and ECF 242.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated October 22, 2024, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Angel D. Mitchell
Angel D. Mitchell
U.S. Magistrate Judge
5
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?