Prophet v. Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners et al
Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 12/8/17. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this order, grants plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint. IMPORTANT: Dispositive motions to be filed by 2/28/18 with responses due 3/14/18 and replies due 3/21/18. Plaintiff shall voluntarily dismiss defendant Dr. Momen within 14 days of the date of this order. (Related Doc. 33 ) (D,MA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, et al.,
CASE NO. 1:17-cv-902
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. 33]
-----------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Plaintiff Roddy Prophet seeks leave from this Court to amend his complaint for the second
In this § 1983 case, Plaintiff Prophet seeks to add as defendants former and current
Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare employees, Dr. Zinovi Goubar, Dr. A. Adityanjee, and
Elizabeth Tady (“Northcoast employees”).2
Plaintiff also seeks to dismiss Defendant Dr.
Defendant Dr. Momen opposes amendment to add the additional
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a party may amend its pleading with the
Court’s leave.5 “Ordinarily, leave to amend a complaint or other pleading shall be freely granted
‘when justice so requires.’”6
Doc. 33. Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint on May 15, 2017. Doc. 4.
Doc. 33 at 1.
Doc. 34. Plaintiff replies. Doc. 35.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Murphy v. Grenier, 406 F. App’x. 972, 977 (6th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
Case No. 1:17-cv-902
The decision to grant or deny leave to amend “is within the discretion of the District
Court.”7 In exercising its discretion, a trial court may consider such factors as “undue delay, bad
faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing parties by virtue of allowance
of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.”8
Ultimately, however, a district court’s discretion is “limited by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)’s
liberal policy of permitting amendments to ensure the determination of claims on their merits.”9
A. Adding Northcoast Employees
In exercising its broad discretion, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint
to add the Northcoast employees.
Defendant Dr. Momen argues that amendment to add other Northcoast employees is
futile.10 He argues that a § 1983 claim against these employees is barred by the statute of
limitations, qualified immunity, and state immunities.11 He also argues that the Northcoast
employees are not liable because they acted pursuant to a court order.12
The Court finds that it can better address these merits-based arguments in a motion to
dismiss. “The trial court has the discretion to grant a party leave to amend a complaint, even where
the amended pleading might ultimately be dismissed.”13 To allow Plaintiff’s claims against the
Northcoast employees to be considered on the merits, the Court, within its discretion, will permit
amendment to add these parties.
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Marks v. Shell Oil Co., 830 F.2d 68, 69 (6th Cir. 1987).
Id. at 1-9.
Id. at 9-10.
Grant v. Target Corp., 281 F.R.D. 299, 303 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (quoting Morse/Diesel, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit
Co. of Md., 715 F. Supp. 578, 581 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)).
Case No. 1:17-cv-902
To relieve any burden caused by permitting such amendment, the Court will extend the
dispositive motion deadlines by thirty days.
B. Dismissing Defendant Dr. Momen
Defendant Dr. Momen does not oppose his dismissal from the complaint.14 Accordingly,
the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to dismiss Dr. Momen. Plaintiff, however,
must also voluntarily dismiss Dr. Momen pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the
complaint. The Court ORDERS dispositive motions to be filed by February 28, 2018, with
response due March 14, 2018 and reply due March 21, 2018. The Court further ORDERS
Plaintiff, within fourteen days of this Order, to voluntarily dismiss Defendant Dr. Momen, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: December 8, 2017
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
See Doc. 34 at 3 n.1.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?