Landers v. Nebraska Department of Corrections et al

Filing 56

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - that Defendants' Motion to Amend Answer (filing no. 55 ) is granted. Defendants must file a signed amended answer by August 28, 2018. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LKO)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
DYLAN ERIC LANDERS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SCOTT FRAKES, DIANE SABATKARINE, J. BEATY, Research
Representative; C. CONNELLY,
Intelligence Representative; M.
ROTHWELL, Classification
Representative; and S. BRYANT, PsyD,
Mental Health Representative;

8:17CV371
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Defendants.
This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Motion to Amend Answer.
(Filing No. 55.) In cases such as this, “a party may amend its pleading only with
the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
In general, courts should allow pleadings to be amended if it is necessary to further
justice and will not prejudice the parties. See Shen v. Leo A. Daly Co., 222 F.3d
472, 478–79 (8th Cir. 2000).
[A] district court can refuse to grant leave to amend a pleading only
where it will result in undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the
part of the movant, . . . , undue prejudice to the opposing party by
virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of the amendment.
Dennis v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 207 F.3d 523, 525 (8th Cir. 2000) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).

After careful review, the court finds that Defendants’ Motion for Leave to
File Amended Answer will not cause undue delay or prejudice and is not filed in
bad faith. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Amend Answer is granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Amend Answer
(filing no. 55) is granted. Defendants must file a signed amended answer by
August 28, 2018.
Dated this 21st day of August, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

2