Sanders v. Michigan Supreme Court et al

Filing 192

OPINION and ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 149 MOTION Amend Complaint re 15 Amended Complaint Second Amended Complaint AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 180 Third MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRENDA K. SANDERS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-12959
District Judge Avern Cohn
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

v.
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO AMEND
Before the Court are Plaintiff Brenda K. Sanders’ two motions to amend her
complaint [Doc. # 149 and Doc. #180]. Both were filed after the filing of multiple
motions to dismiss and Plaintiff’s responses (and sur-replies) to those motions. In the
first motion to amend [Doc. #149], Plaintiff seeks to add parties (Paul R. Fischer and
Judge Michael J. Talbot), as well as addition claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the
second motion [Doc. #180], she seeks to add as additional Defendants present and former
members of the Michigan Supreme Court; Mark A. Armitage; and Michael Sapala, as
well as additional claims under 42 U.S.C. § § 1985(3) and 1986, and Michigan’s Elliott
Larsen Civil rights Act.
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that leave to amend
complaints shall be freely granted “when justice so requires.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
178, 181 (1962). However, such leave is inappropriate when there is “undue delay, bad
faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
-1-

amendments previously allowed, [or] undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of
the allowance of amendment.” Id., 371 U.S. at 182.
In addition, despite the general rule of liberality with which leave to file amended
complaints is to be granted, the Sixth Circuit has held that when a proposed amended
complaint would not survive a motion to dismiss, the court may properly deny the
amendment. Neighborhood Development Corp. v. Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, 632 F.2d 21, 23 (6th Cir. 1980); Thiokol Corporation v. Department of
Treasury, 987 F.2d 376 (6th Cir. 1993).
The determination of whether the motion to amend is to be granted is left to the
sound discretion of the trial court. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182.
First, I note that Plaintiff would have been aware of the basis for and the facts
underlying these new claims and new Defendants when she filed her initial complaint and
her first amended complaint [Doc. #14 and #15], yet she now seeks amendments only
after the original Defendants have filed dispositive motions. Thus, there has been undue
delay in seeking these amendments, for which Plaintiff has not shown good cause.
Moreover, amendment at this late stage of the game would be prejudicial and would
needlessly prolong these proceedings, in which there are multiple pending motions to
dismiss. See Crawford v. Roane, 53 F.3d 750, 753 (6th Cir. 1995)(citing Foman)(court
should deny a motion to amend “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”).
And the proposed amendments would in fact be futile. As discussed in my recent
-2-

Report and Recommendation [Doc. #184], the judges and state actors who are sued in
their official capacities are protected by both Eleventh Amendment immunity and
Michigan governmental immunity. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58,
66 (1989); M.C.L. § 691.1407(1). To the extent that these Defendants (and the newly
added Defendants) are now named in their individual capacities in claims under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and other federal statutory provisions, they would be barred by the threeyear statute of limitations. These and other deficiencies as to the originally named
Defendants remain as to any new claims against them.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to amend [Doc. #149 and Doc. #180] are
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: February 26, 2018

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of
record on February 26, 2018, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.
s/Carolyn M. Ciesla
Case Manager to the
Honorable R. Steven Whalen

-3-