Evans v. Thompson et al

Filing 73

Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein: ORDER ON PLAINTIFF"S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT entered. In the interests of justice and efficiency, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion 71 for leave to file second amended compl aint is ALLOWED. The Clerk shall docket plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint (#71-1) as the operative pleading in this litigation. Defendants shall respond to the Second Amended Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and all applicable local and federal rules. The Clerk mailed a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address listed on the docket. (PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

JOHN EVANS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL THOMPSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-13024-JCD

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
DEIN, U.S.M.J.
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint is ALLOWED. The Clerk shall docket the proposed Second Amended Complaint as
the operative pleading and Defendants shall respond in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and all
applicable local and federal rules.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff John Evans (“Evans”) initiated this action on July 16, 2014, by filing a complaint
against eight correctional officials and employees for alleged actions surrounding the issuance of
a disciplinary report charging Evans with the introduction of a controlled substance and the
resultant sanction of, and conditions in, solitary confinement after being found guilty during
prison disciplinary proceedings. On February 10, 2016, an Answer was filed on behalf of all
defendants except defendant Tolozko. See Docket No. 67.
The following month, on March 18, 2016, Evans filed a motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint (“SAC”). See Docket No. 71. Evans argues that his motion should be
granted because the proposed SAC: (1) clarifies that he was held in solitary confinement until

July 15, 2014, (2) drops six of the nine defendants from the action, and (3) includes a new
allegation that defendant Thompson “failed to ensure that the MCI-Concord kitchen, staff follow
and serve the standard food portin (sic) giving prisoners, resulting in Evans being injured in his
health...” Id. at p. 2. The proposed SAC amends the first amended complaint by dropping six
defendants and, except for including new factual allegations regarding the amount of food
provided to Evans and his severe weight loss while in solitary confinement, continuing the same
claims pleaded in the first amended complaint against the three remaining defendants. See
Docket No. 71-1. In conclusion, Evans explains that his proposed SAC “will supply additional
facts relative to each Defendant(s) role in training and in promulgation and implementing the
polices and procedures that Evans is subjected to so as to satisfy his pleading requirement.” See
Docket No. 71 at p. 3.
Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to Evans’ motion. See Docket No. 72.
Defendants oppose the motion to the extent that Evans seeks to add new claims that they contend
do not arise from or relate to the claims in the amended complaint. Id. The defendants argue that
under Rules 18(a) and 20(a)(2), the new claim regarding the amount of food and his weight loss
while in solitary confinement should not be permitted. However, for the reasons that follow, the
Court finds the defendants’ argument unpersuasive.
LEGAL STANDARD
The decision whether to grant a motion for leave to amend falls within the trial court's
discretion. Sheehan v. City of Gloucester, 321 F.3d 21, 26 (1st Cir. 2003). The Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure provide that leave to amend a complaint should be “freely give[n] * * * when
justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Nevertheless, courts may deny leave to amend

2

where permitting the amendment: (1) would cause prejudice to the opposing party; (2) would
result in undue delay in litigation; (3) would be futile; (4) is sought by plaintiffs in bad faith; or
(5) the plaintiffs have filed numerous amended complaints. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182
(1962).
Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the joinder of claims, and
20(a)(2) limits the joinder of defendants. Rule 18(a) provides: “A party asserting a claim ... may
join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Rule 20(a)(2) provides: “Persons ... may be joined in one action as
defendants if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the
alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will
arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (A) and (B).
DISCUSSION
Defendants have not demonstrated that the motion to amend was brought in bad faith, for
dilatory purpose, would prejudice them, would be futile or cause unjust delay. Instead, they argue
that one of the claims in the SAC relates to only one defendant and that Evans could bring the
claim in a new lawsuit. Defendants’ opposition references two unpublished opinions. See Jacobs
v. Soars, No. 14-12536-LTS, 2014 WL 7330762 (D. Mass. Dec. 2, 2014 ); Spencer v. Bender,
No. 08-11528-RGS, 2010 WL 1740957 (D. Mass. Apr. 28, 2010). However, Evans’ SAC is
distinguishable from the pleadings in Jacobs and Spencer. In Jacobs, a frequent pro se litigant
sought to file against almost two dozen defendants a “proposed amended complaint [that]
contains the kitchen sink of claims that appear to have little to do with each other.” Jacobs, 2014

3

WL 7330762, at *8.
In Spencer, the Court found it improper to join defendants and claims of “being handcuffed too tightly after complaining of the lack of access to showers during a lockdown at MCI
Concord, of harassment by different correction officers while he was under mental health watch
at MCI Concord, and of the failure of a completely different set of defendants to pay Spencer
adequately for preparing Halal meals at MCI Shirley.” Spencer, 2010 WL 1740957, at *2.
The allegations in Evans’ proposed SAC is in keeping with the scope and nature of his
original and amended complaints. Here, Evans does not seek to add new defendants nor bring a
wide variety of claims unrelated to the allegations brought in his earlier pleadings. Where, as one
court has noted, “the complaint, as amended, would radically alter the scope and nature of the
case and bears no more than a tangential relationship to the original action, leave to amend should
be denied.” Miss. Ass’n of Coops. v. Farmers Home Admin., 139 F.R.D. 542, 544 (D.D.C.
1991). That is not the case here. Evans, in his amended complaint, alleges that his placement in
solitary confinement amounted to cruel and unusual punishment and caused plaintiff to suffer,
including his mental health. Here, Evans’ alleged weight loss due to food portions arise out of the
same occurrence; namely his placement in, and the conditions of, solitary confinement. The
greater detail provided by Evans in the SAC comports with the interests of justice.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, in the interests of justice and efficiency, it is hereby ORDERED that
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file second amended complaint (#71) is ALLOWED. The Clerk
shall docket plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint (#71-1) as the operative pleading in
this litigation. Defendants shall respond to the Second Amended Complaint in accordance with

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and all applicable local and federal rules.
SO ORDERED.

/ s / Judith Gail Dein
Judith Gail Dein
U.S. Magistrate Judge
DATED: May 18, 2016

5