Farr v. Winn

Filing 78

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 74 Motion to Amend/Correct--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

Case 4:18-cv-11092-SDD-APP ECF No. 78, PageID.672 Filed 03/14/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TOMMY LEE FARR,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 4:18-cv-11092
District Judge Stephanie Dawkins
Davis
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

O’BELL WINN, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 74)
This matter came before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s motion for
leave to file a first amended complaint (ECF No. 74) and Defendants’ response in
opposition (ECF No. 77). Judge Davis referred the motion to me for a hearing and
determination. (ECF No. 76.) A hearing was held on March 11, 2022, at which
counsel for both parties appeared and the Court entertained oral argument
regarding the motion.
Upon consideration of the motion papers and oral argument, for the reasons
summarized below, and as explained in greater detail on the record by the Court,
all of which is hereby incorporated by reference as though fully restated herein,
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (ECF No. 74) is
DENIED. First, even viewing Plaintiff’s original pleading (ECF No. 1) under the

Case 4:18-cv-11092-SDD-APP ECF No. 78, PageID.673 Filed 03/14/22 Page 2 of 3

liberal pleading standards afforded to pro se plaintiffs, the Court finds that it
cannot be construed to contain a claim for pervasive risk of harm, as the factual
allegations and claims raised relate to a single incident in September 2015,
involving a single prisoner, and a single gang, and do not suggest a general policy
failure, systemic or widespread gang violence, or that anyone else was targeted.
(See ECF No. 1, PageID.3-4.) Second, the Court finds that the addition of a
pervasive risk of harm claim would be futile under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(c) as barred by the applicable statute of limitations, because the proposed
factual allegations in support of such a claim do not relate back to the date of the
original pleading, nor arise from the same core of operative facts. Mayle v. Felix,
545 U.S. 644, 657 (2005) (agreeing with the reasoning of the majority of Circuits
that “allow relation back only when the claims added by amendment arise from the
same core of facts as the timely filed claims, and not when the new claims depend
upon events separate in ‘both time and type’ from the originally raised episodes”);
Day v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 165 F.3d 27 (6th Cir. 1998) (unpublished
table decision) (“Where a particular claim is barred by the applicable statute of
limitations, it does not present an arguable or rational basis in law or fact and
therefore may be dismissed as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B).”). See Mich.
Comp. Laws § 600.5805(2); Carroll v. Wilkerson, 782 F.2d 44, 45 (6th Cir. 1986)
(section 1983 claim subject to Michigan’s three-year limitations period). As the
2

Case 4:18-cv-11092-SDD-APP ECF No. 78, PageID.674 Filed 03/14/22 Page 3 of 3

Supreme Court observed in Mayle, while Rule 15(c)(2) may “‘qualify a statute of
limitations[,]’” the term “‘qualify’ does not mean repeal.” Mayle, 545 U.S. at 66263 (quoting from Justice Souter’s dissent). Here, the facts Plaintiff seeks to add in
support of a pervasive risk of harm claim are much wider in scope, in both “time
and type”—encompassing systemic and widespread events from 2012-2016—than
the timely-filed claims related to a specific September 2015 incident described in
his original pleading. See Alfaro v. Johnson, 862 F.3d 1176, 1183 (9th Cir. 2017)
(rejecting attempt to add systemic delay claim involving “system wide data” as not
arising from the same core facts as the timely filed habeas claims). Finally, the
Court finds that the requested amendment would unduly prejudice Defendants, as
the case has been pending since April 2018, the discovery period has closed and
dispositive motions have been filed and decided, and the proposed additional claim
involves different legal theories and factual underpinnings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 14, 2022

______________________
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

3