Coleman v. Calvert County et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 1/15/2016. (c/m 1/16/2016 aos, Deputy Clerk)

FILED
U.S. OISTRICTCOURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURiJlSTRICT OF MARYLAND
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOl/tit em Dh';s;o/l
lOlbJAN/S
P 1:50
CLfRK'S OFFiCE
t", GREENBELT

*
WAYNE E. COLEMAN,
*
Plaintiff,

flL_

-.- ....OE"[lTY

*
Case No.: G.J11-15-9211

".

*

CALVERT

COUNTY, et aI.,

*
*

Defendants.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

OPINION

Plaintiff Wayne E. Coleman has filed suit against Calvert County. the Calvert County
Sheriff Department. Supervising Ofticer Phelps. Ollicer Galt. Ofticer Cress. and Mike Evans.
alleging violations of his civil rights. pursuant to 42 V.S.c. ~ 1983. See ECF NO.2. Pursuant to
28 V.S.c.

S

I446(d). Defendants removed this matter from the Circuit Court for Calvert County.

Maryland to this Courl. ECF NO.6.
This Memorandum Opinion and accompanying Order address PlaintilTs Motion for
More Definite Statement (ECF No. IS) and Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
(ECF No. 16). A hearing is unnecessary. See Lac. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For the reasons stated
below, Plaintiffs Motion lor More Definite Statement is DENIED and Plaintiffs Motion tor
Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED. Accordingly. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or. in
the Alternative. Motion for Summary Judgement (ECF No. 13) is DENIED withoul prejudice as
moo!.

I.

BACKGROUND
On February 4. 2014. Officer Gott pulled over a car being driven by PlaintilTbecause

car did not have license plates. ECF NO.2 at 2. PlaintifI

proceeding

the

pro se, liled this action in

the Circuit Court for Calvert County on February 4, 2015. alleging that the actions taken by
Officer Gott during the stop violated his constitutional
Defendants

removed

II.

rights in a number of ways. Id.

the case to this Court on March 30. 20 IS. ECF No. I.

DISCUSSION
A. Motion for More Definite Statement
Plaintiff has filed a motion for more definite statement

Dismiss.

ECF No. 15. Pursuant

for a more definite statement

to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

may be filed in response to a pleading.

According

to Rule 7(a). the following

are considered

complaint;

an answer to a counterclaim

designated

a third-party

complaint;

reply to an answer.
Motion for Summary
Plaintiffs

related to Defendants'

pleadings:

an answer to a third-patty

complaint:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). Defendants'
Judgment.

is not a pleading

Motion for More Definite Statement

a motion

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).

a complaint:

as a counterclaim:

Motion to

an answer to a

an answer to a crossclaim:

and. if the Court orders one. a

Motion to Dismiss or. in the Alternative.

within the meaning of Rule 7(a). Accordingly.

is DENIED.

B. Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
Next. the Court considers

Plainti!rs

Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

(ECF No.

16). PlaintifTargues

that the motion should be granted "in fUitherance o I'justice and liling of this

amended

complaint

is necessitated

process,"

ECF No. 16-1. Rule 15('1)(2) instructs courts to "freely give leave when justice so

requires,"

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15('1)(2).

primarily

based on the facts uncovered

2

during the pleading

Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that the motion "should be denied because
Plaintiff did not file a highlighted version identifying the amendments," ECF No. 20 at 2. Local
Rule 103,6 requires "a copy of the amended pleading in which stricken material has been lincd
through or enclosed in brackets and new material has been underlined or set forth in bold-faced
type." Loc, R, 103.6.c. However, pro se litigant pleadings "are held to a less stringent standard
than fonnal pleadings dralied by lawyers," and the Court is not inclined to deny a motion for
leave to amend a complaint based on this procedural flaw. Ihrah \'. Bd. of Educ .. No. WMN-09CV-1044, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46033. at *5 (D. Md. May 11,2010) (granting pro se
plaintiffs

motion to amend complaint despite plaintiff failing to adhere to Local Rule 103.6.c).

Defendants also argue that the Amended Complaint is fi.ttile because the previously
submitted evidence "conclusively establish Defendants acted reasonably, lawfully and
professionally throughout their interaction with PlaintifT." ECF No. 20 at 3. "A motion to amend
should be denied only where it would be prejudicial. there has been bad faith. or the amendment
would be futile." Nouri.I'on Rug Corp. \'. l'wTiziul1, 535 F.3d 295. 298 (4th Cir. 2008) (citations
omitted). However. '''if the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintifTmay be a
proper subject of relief and the plaintiff moves to amend. the Court should grant the motion to
give the plaintiff 'opportunity to test his claim on the merits. '" Crump

I'.•

\Iomgomel)' Cly. Bd. or

Educ., No. PWG-12-3378. 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153319. at *12 (D. Md. Oct. 25.2013).
"Detcnnining whether amendment would be li.ttile does not involve 'an evaluation of the
underlying merits of the casc .... Id. Instead, ".the merits of the litigation' arc relevant to the
Court's ruling on a motion lor leave to amend only if 'a proposed amcndment may clearly be
seen to be futile,' such as 'if the proposed amended complaint fails to state a claim under the
applicable rules and accompanying standards .... Id. at * 12-* 13 (citations omitted). Plaintiff s

3

Amended Complaint includes several claims for relief. See ECF No. 16 at 6-17. Even a cursory
review, however, indicates that deficiencies existing in the original complaint may not have been
cured by amendment. Nonetheless, the Court does not find prejudice. bad faith. or that the
amendments are clearly futile. Thus. the Court will allow this amendment so that the pro se
Plaintiffs claims receive full consideration by this Court. To the extent Defendants contend that
arguments in their Motion to Dismiss are not impacted by the Amended Complaint. they may tile
a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint that incorporates the arguments made in their
pending motion. Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED.

III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above. Plaintiffs Motion for a More Detinite Statement is

DENIED, Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED. and Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss or. in the Alternative. for Summary Judgment is DENIED without prejudice
as moot. A separate order shall follow .

•.
h

Dated:

January

1'1 . 2016
GEORGE .I. HAZEL
United States District Judge

4