Griffin v. Klee et al

Filing 25

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 19 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by Randle Griffin., ( Defendants' Response due by 6/1/2015)--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RANDLE GRIFFIN,
Case No. 2:14-cv-14290
District Judge Matthew F. Leitman
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL KLEE, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND
COMPLAINT (DE 19)
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff Randal Griffin’s
motion to amend complaint. (DE 19.) For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s
motion is GRANTED.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without the assistance of counsel,

brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (DE 1 and 2.) Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants violated his rights under the First Amendment by retaliating against
him for various activities, including his participation on the Warden’s Forum, his
assistance of another prisoner, and his filing of grievances and a complaint in
federal court.

1 

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 8, 2015 (DE 14), to which
Plaintiff responded on January 29, 2015. (DE 18.) On April 16, 2015, the
Undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation to deny the motion to dismiss
in its entirety. (DE 23.) The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation on
May 7, 2015. (DE 24.) Plaintiff filed the instant motion on January 29, 2015,
seeking leave to amend his complaint to state that Defendants acted under color of
state law during the times relevant to his allegations. (DE 19.) Along with his
Motion, Plaintiff provides what appears to be the last two pages of his amended
complaint, along with an affidavit in which Plaintiff swears to the events described
in his original complaint.
Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s Motion. (DE 20.) Specifically, they assert
that they are unable to adequately respond to the motion to amend because Plaintiff
has failed to include a copy of the amended complaint that will replace his original
complaint. (DE 20 at 3.) Defendants conclude that, not only does Plaintiff’s
failure to attach the amended complaint violate Eastern District of Michigan Local
Rule 15.1, but it also prejudices Defendants because they are uncertain as to what
Plaintiff wishes to amend.
Plaintiff filed a reply on February 18, 2015, in which he concedes that he
failed to comply with E.D. Mich. LR 15.1, but asserts that it was unintentional.
(DE 21.) In addition, he points out that under the Local Rules, failure to reproduce
2 

the entire pleading as amended is not grounds for denial of the motion. On the
same day, he filed a document titled “amended complaint.” (DE 22.) In the
amended complaint, Plaintiff reproduces his original complaint in its entirety and
adds the phrase “while acting under the color of state law” on pages nine and ten.
II.

STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a party may amend its

pleadings at this stage of the proceedings only after obtaining leave of court. The
Rule provides that the Court should freely give leave for a party to amend its
pleading “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Nevertheless, leave
to amend ‘should be denied if the amendment is brought in bad faith, for dilatory
purposes, results in undue delay or prejudice to the opposing party, or would be
futile.”’ Carson v. U.S. Office of Special Counsel, 663 F.3d 487, 495 (6th Cir.
2011) (quoting Crawford v. Roane, 53 F.3d 750, 753 (6th Cir. 1995)).
In addition, the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan require a
party moving to amend a pleading to “attach the proposed amended pleading to the
motion.” E.D. Mich. LR 15.1. Any amendment to a pleading must “reproduce the
entire pleading as amended, and may not incorporate any prior pleading by
reference.” Id. Failure to comply with Rule 15.1, however, is “not grounds for
denial of the motion.” Id.

3 

III.

ANALYSIS
The Court concludes that, under the liberal amendment standard outlined in

Rule 15(a)(2), Plaintiff is entitled to amend his complaint. There is no indication
that the amendment was brought in bad faith or for dilatory purposes. In addition,
Defendants’ assertion that they will be prejudiced because Plaintiff failed to file
the amended complaint in its entirety was rendered moot when Plaintiff made such
a filing. Even if Defendants had objections to the content of the amended
pleading, they did not seek leave to file a surreply or otherwise respond after
Plaintiff filed his amended complaint. Moreover, the additional language that
Plaintiff adds in his amended complaint does not alter his case in any substantial
manner, and could hardly be deemed prejudicial. Nor has there been any showing
that it is futile. Although Plaintiff should have attached the amended complaint to
his motion or reply brief, rather than filing it on the docket, the Court will allow
docket entry 22 to stand as the operative pleading. Plaintiff’s motion to amend is
therefore GRANTED. Defendants are DIRECTED to answer the amended
complaint or otherwise plead within twenty-one days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2015

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on May 11, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti
[phone]

5