Hestdalen v. Corrizon Corrections Healthcare et al

Filing 48

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Danny D. Hestdalen's Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 46 ), is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant John DeGhetto's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 44 ), is DISMISSED as moot. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 1/4/2019. (CLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
DANNY D. HESTDALEN,
Plaintiff,
vs.

CORISON CORRECTIONS
HEALTHCARE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:18-cv-00039-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Danny D. Hestdalen’s Motion to Amend
Complaint (Doc. 46), and Defendant John DeGhetto’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 44).
On December 3, 2018, DeGhetto filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s medical
malpractice claim on the ground that Plaintiff had not filed an affidavit in support as required by
Missouri law. (Doc. 44.) In that Motion, DeGhetto also noted that Plaintiff’s allegations against
him “sound in deliberate indifference rather than medical malpractice.” (Id.) In response,
Plaintiff filed this motion, agreeing that his claim sounds in deliberate indifference and therefore
seeking leave to amend his complaint to formally assert a deliberate indifference claim. (Doc.
46.)
Motions to amend pleadings are governed by Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Lexington Ins. Co. v. S & N Display Fireworks, Inc., 2011 WL 5330744, at *2
(E.D. Mo. Nov. 7, 2011). Under Rule 15(a), leave to amend should be “freely given when
justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Under this liberal standard, denial of leave to
amend pleadings is appropriate only if “there are compelling reasons such as undue delay, bad

faith or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed,
undue prejudice to the nonmoving party, or futility of the amendment.” Sherman v. Winco
Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 715 (8th Cir. 2008). In addition, “[a] document filed pro se is ‘to
be liberally construed,’ and ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106)).
“The party opposing the amendment has the burden of demonstrating the amendment
would be unfairly prejudicial.” Nadist, LLC v. Doe Run Res. Corp., No. 4:06CV969 CDP, 2009
WL 3680533, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 30, 2009) (citing Roberson v. Hayti Police Dept., 241 F.3d
992, 995 (8th Cir. 2001)). “Whether to grant a motion for leave to amend is within the discretion
of the Court.” Id. (citing Popoalii v. Correctional Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir.
2008)).
In light of DeGhetto’s recognition that Plaintiff’s allegations sound in deliberate
indifference and the Court’s liberal construction of Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, the Court
concludes that granting leave is in the interest of justice and would not prejudice Defendants. As
such, DeGhetto’s Motion to Dismiss is moot.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Danny D. Hestdalen’s Motion to Amend
Complaint (Doc. 46), is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant John DeGhetto’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 44), is DISMISSED as moot.
Dated this 4th Day of January, 2019.
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2