Tucker v. County of Stark et al
Filing
36
Memorandum Opinion granting, in part, plaintiff's motion to file second amended complaint instanter. (Doc. No. 33 ). On or before January 29, 2018, plaintiff shall file the second amended complaint attached to his motion at Doc. No. 33-1. Judge Sara Lioi on 1/24/2018. (P,J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
BRIAN TUCKER,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
COUNTY OF STARK, et al.,
DEFENDANTS.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 5:17-CV-140
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Brian Tucker (“Tucker”) to file
a second amended complaint, instanter. (Doc. No. 33 [“Mot. Amend”].) The motion is
unopposed. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted, in part.
Tucker brought this action against defendants on January 19, 2017, seeking damages
against defendants for injuries he allegedly sustained “while in the custody of the Stark County
Sheriff’s Deputies and the Stark County Jail from January 20, 2015 through January 27, 2015.”
(Doc. No. 3 (First Amended Complaint [“FAC”]) ¶ 1; see Doc. No. 1 (Complaint).) He amended
his complaint once, as a matter of right, that same day (January 19, 2017). (See FAC.) The FAC
raised claims against defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Ohio law.
The Court conducted a case management conference on September 6, 2017, after which
the Court issued a case management plan and trial order that, among other things, identified
December 6, 2017 as the deadline to add parties or amend the pleadings.
On December 5, 2017, plaintiffs filed the instant motion to amend, and appended a copy
of the proposed pleading thereto. Defendants have not filed a response to the motion, but the
parties have indicated in a recently filed joint status report that the motion to amend is
unopposed. (Doc. No. 35 at 365.) By way of amendment, plaintiff seeks to add new party
defendants Correctional Officers Laurice Jackson, Mitchell Paulen, Nicole Justice, Jacob Tate,
and Zehnder. In his motion to amend, Tucker explains that he identified these individuals in
paragraph 6 of the complaint and FAC, and described their allegedly liable conduct in the body
of these pleadings, but inadvertently failed to include them in the case caption. (Mot. at 323.)
Having just realized the error, Tucker now moves to amend. (Id.)
After a responsive pleading is filed, the complaining party may amend the pleadings only
with the opposing party’s written consent or by leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “The court
should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. The decision whether to permit the
amendment is committed to the discretion of the trial court. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine
Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330-32, 91 S. Ct. 795, 28 L. Ed. 2d 77 (1971) (citation omitted);
Estes v. Ky. Util., 636 F.2d 1131, 1133 (6th Cir. 1980). The trial court’s discretion, however, is
“limited by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)’s liberal policy of permitting amendments to ensure the
determination of claims on the merits.” Marks v. Shell Oil Co., 830 F.2d 68, 69 (6th Cir. 1987)
(citation omitted).1
“Leave to amend may be denied when it would result in undue delay, prejudice to the
opposing party, or repeated failure to cure deficiencies in the complaint.” Phelps v. McClellan,
30 F.3d 658, 662 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 9 L.
Ed. 2d 222 (1962); Duchon v. Cajon Co., 791 F.2d 43, 48 (6th Cir. 1986)). When a party has
The addition of new parties is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, which provides, in relevant part: “On motion or on
its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.”
1
2
delayed in seeking amendment, the court weighs the cause shown for the delay against the
resulting prejudice to the opposing party. Head v. Timken Roller Bearing Co., 486 F.2d 870, 873
(6th Cir. 1973). “In determining what constitutes prejudice, the court considers whether the
assertion of the new claim or defense would: require the opponent to expend significant
additional resources to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; significantly delay the resolution
of the dispute; or prevent the plaintiff from bringing a timely action in another jurisdiction.”
Phelps, 30 F.3d at 662-63 (citation omitted). The longer the period of unexplained delay, the less
prejudice the adverse party will be required to show to defeat the motion. Id. at 662 (citation
omitted).
Although this is now the third iteration of the complaint, the Court finds no evidence of
significant prejudice to the opposing parties, a likelihood of substantial delay in the proceedings,
or a repeated failure to cure deficiencies in the pleadings. Additionally, the request to amend has
been filed before the expiration of the deadline to add parties or amend the pleadings and with
more than six months left in discovery, and there is no evidence to suggest that the amendment
will cause defendants to expend significant additional expenses conducting discovery. With this
amendment, the Court trusts that the parties will be able to move beyond the pleading stage and
proceed uninterrupted with the case management plan that governs this case.
Thus, in light of the mandate of Rule 15(a) that leave should be “freely” given, the Court
rules that “justice so requires” that the motion to amend be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
3
The Court grants plaintiff’s motion. On or before January 29, 2018, plaintiff shall file the second
amended complaint attached to his motion at Doc. No. 33-1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 24, 2018
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?