Owens v. Kijakazi et al
Filing
39
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 30 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 38 Plaintiff's Motion for Third Amended Complaint; directing Madam Clerk to docket the Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 38-1). Signed by Judge Julie Rebecca Rubin on 1/27/2025. (ols, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MILDRED DELORIS OWENS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 1:23-CV-01623-JRR
MARTIN O’ MALLEY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court are Defendant Martin O’Malley’s Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 30) and Plaintiff Mildred Deloris Owens’ Motion for Third Amended Complaint (ECF
No. 38; the “Motion”). The court has reviewed all papers; no hearing is necessary. Local Rule
105.6 (D. Md. 2023). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 38) will be granted
and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30) will be denied as moot.
On June 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff
filed an Amended Complaint, adding several Defendants. (ECF No. 3.) On February 9, 2024,
Defendant Martin O’Malley filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or, in the
alternative, for summary judgment. (ECF No. 14.) On March 14, 2024, the court issued a show
cause order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why service of process had not been effectuated on
all Defendants. (ECF No. 18.) On March 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed her response to the show cause
order and stated that she did not file proof of service against any of the named Defendants except
the Social Security Administration Commissioner because she did not intend to bring suit against
anyone except the agency. (ECF No. 20 at 1-2.) Plaintiff stated that that she attempted to cure her
mistake by filing a second amended complaint, but that it was rejected because she failed to seek
leave from the court. Id. at 2. Based on Plaintiff’s representations that she does not seek to pursue
this civil action against the unserved defendants, the court dismissed the Amended Complaint
without prejudice as against the unserved defendants, and the case proceeded only as to Defendant
Martin O’Malley, Social Security Administration Commissioner. (ECF No. 21.)
On May 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Leave to File a Motion to Amend” (ECF
No. 23), which the court construed as a motion for leave of court to file an amended complaint
(ECF No. 24). Defendant opposed the requested leave to amend as futile. (ECF No. 25 at 1.)
Finding that the proposed second amended complaint was not futile or frivolous on its face, the
court granted Plaintiff’s motion and docketed the second amended complaint. (ECF No. 28.)
Thereafter, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30), which Plaintiff opposes
(ECF No. 35). On October 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed the Motion seeking leave to amend the
complaint a third time. (ECF No. 38.) Defendant did not respond to the Motion.
In the proposed Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to add one alleged violation of
Title VII.1 (ECF No. 38 at p. 1.) She proposes to add the following:
Between October 5, 2018 (when Plaintiff was reassigned to the
Office of Dissemination, reporting to Margaret Jones) and June
2020 (when she retired), her duties as Management and Program
Analyst were eroded, some of which were transferred to other
younger, White Caucasian co-workers.
(ECF No. 38-1 at p. 5.)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a
matter of course” within 21 days of serving it or, “if the pleading is one to which a responsive
pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a
Plaintiff additionally “withdraws the claim regarding involuntary reassignment (to the Office of Dissemination
under Margaret Jones supervision)” (ECF No. 38 at p. 1) however she does not indicate where in the proposed
amended complaint this change is made, nor is this court able to independently determine where such a claim was
removed.
1
2
motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(1). Otherwise,
however, “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). Rule 15(a) counsels that “[t]he court should freely give
leave when justice so requires.” Id. “The Supreme Court has emphasized that ‘this mandate is to
be heeded.’” Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986) (quoting Foman
v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
“The Fourth Circuit’s policy is ‘to liberally allow
amendment.’” Lavin v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., No. SAG 22-1788, 2022 WL 17342051, at *1 (D.
Md. Nov. 30, 2022) (quoting Galustian v. Peter, 591 F.3d 724, 729 (4th Cir. 2010)). Therefore,
“leave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to
the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment
would be futile.” Johnson, 785 F.2d at 509; see Oliver v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., 350
F. Supp. 3d 340, 345 (D. Md. 2018) (noting that “[g]ranting leave to amend [] is the default under
Rule 15”).
Defendant has not responded to the Motion and therefore has not alleged that the proposed
amended complaint is futile, prejudicial, or sought in bad faith. The instant case is still in the early
stages of litigation—no scheduling order has been issued; no discovery has occurred. See Laber
v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006) (explaining that “[w]hether an amendment is
prejudicial will often be determined by the nature of the amendment and its timing.”). In some
circumstances, this court disfavors a pattern of amending; for example, when such amendment is
done to avoid a dispositive motion. See Daulatzai v. Maryland, 606 F. Supp. 3d 252, 265 (D. Md.
2022), aff’d, 97 F.4th 166 (4th Cir. 2024) (affirming denial of leave to amend where plaintiff’s
repeated amendments had “not been a good-faith effort to crystallize and pursue viable claims.”);
Frazier v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. CV JKB-21-2936, 2023 WL 3168350, at *5 (D. Md. Apr. 28,
3
2023) (noting courts’ disfavor for motions to amend brought for the purposes of circumventing
dispositive motions). Here, however, pro se Plaintiff Owens seeks to amend to clarify earliermade factual allegations regarding a cognizable claim for relief. (ECF No. 38 at p. 4.) In view of
the Fourth Circuit’s mandate to “liberally allow amendment” in furtherance of “a wider federal
policy of—when possible—resolving cases on the merits,” Plaintiff may amend her complaint for
a third time. United States ex rel. Nicholson v. MedCom Carolinas, Inc., 42 F.4th 185, 197 (4th
Cir. 2022); see Lavin, 2022 WL 17342051, at *2 (noting that while the procedure was lacking in
efficiency, “the cleanest record will be produced by permitting Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint to be filed, then allowing Safeco to re-file its arguments in favor dismissal, if it so
chooses, for this [c]ourt’s substantive consideration under Rule 12(b)(6) standard”).
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s Motion for Third Amended Complaint (ECF
No. 38) shall be, and is hereby, GRANTED; the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 30) shall be, and is hereby, DENIED AS
MOOT. Madam Clerk is directed to docket the Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 38-1.)
January 27, 2025
___/S/_____________________
Julie R. Rubin
United States District Judge
4
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?