PLOURDE v. HIGGINS et al
Filing
55
ORDER granting 50 Motion to Amend Complaint. Plaintiff is REQUIRED to separately file the AMENDED COMPLAINT on or before 11/5/2024. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (MFS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
GLEN PLOURDE,
Plaintiff
v.
BANGOR POLICE DEPARTMENT,
et al.,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:23-cv-00323-JAW
ORDER ON MOTION TO AMEND
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint.
(Motion to Amend, ECF No. 50.) Defendants oppose the motion. (Response in Opposition
to Motion to Amend, ECF No. 52.) Following review of the parties’ arguments and the
record, the Court grants the motion.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In August 2023, Plaintiff filed this action against the City of Bangor, the Bangor
Police Department, and several of the department’s officers. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) On
October 13, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and moved to amend the motion to
dismiss on October 31, 2023. (Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7; Motion to Amend Motion
to Dismiss, ECF No. 8.)
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 6, 2023. On November 16,
2023, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint. (Motion to
Dismiss Amended Complaint, ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff moved to file a second amended
complaint on March 22, 2024, (Motion to Amend Complaint, ECF No. 29), which motion
the Court granted on August 22, 2024. (Order Granting Motion to Amend Complaint, ECF
No. 45.) On September 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed another motion to amend his complaint,
which motion is the subject of this order. (Motion to Amend Complaint, ECF No. 50.) To
prevent any confusion that might result from the multiple amendments and dispositive
motions, on September 20, 2024, the Court dismissed without prejudice Defendants’
motion to dismiss, which motion, the Court noted, may be renewed after the Court rules
on the pending motion to amend. (Order Dismissing Motions Without Prejudice, ECF No.
53.)
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) permits a litigant to amend a pleading “as
a matter of course” subject to certain time constraints. However, when a party seeks to
amend a complaint more than 21 days after the filing of a responsive pleading, the other
party’s consent or leave of court is required in order to amend the complaint. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a)(2). In such a case, the court is to grant leave to amend “freely” when “justice so
requires.” Id.; see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (“In the absence of any
apparent or declared reason—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.—the leave sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’”).
DISCUSSION
According to Plaintiff, the proposed modifications to the operative pleading do not
alter his substantive claims or the relief he seeks. Instead, Plaintiff maintains that the
2
modifications are in part designed to assert explicitly certain facts that are reasonably
inferred from the allegations in the existing complaint. Defendants contend that the
modifications are not necessary for Plaintiff to prosecute his claims and that Defendants
should not be required to incur the increased expense of addressing another amended
complaint.
Defendants’ concerns regarding the procedural history of the case, which has
included the filing of two amended complaints, and the costs associated with this litigation
are not unreasonable. Through their motions to dismiss, Defendants have attempted to
challenge Plaintiff’s ability to proceed on his claims, but due partly to Plaintiff’s prior
requests to amend his complaint, Defendants have been practically unable to prosecute
their motions. While the Court understands Defendants’ concerns, because a scheduling
order has not issued, because the proposed amendment does not modify the nature of the
claims asserted, and because the Court discerns no prejudice to Defendants’ ability to
defend against Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court will permit the amendment.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to amend.
Plaintiff shall file the amended complaint on or before November 4, 2025.
NOTICE
Any objections to the Order shall be filed in accordance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 25th day of October, 2024.
3
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?