Kister v. Kelly et al
Filing
22
OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Motion to Amend, Doc. No.[ 21], is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 11/16/12. (rew)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CHAD KISTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Civil Action 2:12-CV-572
Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge King
PAT KELLY, ATHENS COUNTY
SHERIFF, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to amend
the Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend”), Doc. No. 21, in which
plaintiff seeks to add the Southeast Ohio Regional Jail as a
defendant.
For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is governed by Rule 15(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a “court should
freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”
P. 15(a)(2).
Fed. R. Civ.
“The thrust of Rule 15 is to reinforce the principle
that cases should be tried on their merits rather than the
technicalities of pleadings.”
Tefft v. Seward, 689 F.2d 637, 639 (6th
Cir. 1982) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48 (1957)).
The
grant or denial of a request to amend a complaint is left to the broad
discretion of the trial court.
F.2d 1119, 1130 (6th Cir. 1990).
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916
In exercising its discretion, the
trial court may consider such factors as “undue delay, bad faith or
1
dilatory motive on the part of a movant, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the
opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment [and] futility
of the amendment.”
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
“A proposed amendment is futile if the amendment could not
withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.”
Rose v. Hartford
Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing
Thiokol Corp. v. Dep’t of Treasury, Revenue Div., 987 F.2d 376, 382-83
(6th Cir. 1993)).
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) attacks the
legal sufficiency of the complaint.
See Roth Steel Prods. v. Sharon
Steel Co., 705 F.2d 134, 155 (6th Cir. 1983).
In determining whether
dismissal on this basis is appropriate, a complaint must be construed
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and all well-pleaded
facts must be accepted as true.
See Bower v. Fed. Express Corp., 96
F.3d 200, 203 (6th Cir. 1996);
Misch v. Cmty. Mut. Ins. Co., 896 F.
Supp. 734, 738 (S.D. Ohio 1994).
The United States Supreme Court has
explained that “once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be
supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations
in the complaint.”
(2007).
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 546
However, a plaintiff’s claim for relief “requires more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of
a cause of action will not do.”
Id. at 555.
“Factual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level . . . .”
Id.
Accordingly, a complaint must be dismissed – and
amending a complaint is futile – if the complaint does not plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
2
face.”
Id. at 570.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend seeks to add the Southeast Ohio
Regional Jail as a defendant, but the proposed Amended Complaint, Doc.
No. 21-1, appears to be an exact copy of his original Complaint, Doc.
No. 1-2.
The allegations in the proposed Amended Complaint do not
mention the Southeast Ohio Regional Jail.
To the extent that any
allegation may involve the Southeast Ohio Regional Jail, plaintiff’s
claims appear to be premised on a violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1983.
Municipal departments, such as jails, however, are not “persons”
subject to suit under § 1983.
See e.g., Marbry v. Corr. Med. Servs.,
238 F.3d 422, 2000 WL 1720959, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2000) (“[T]he
Shelby County Jail is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983)
(citing Rhodes v. McDannel, 945 F.2d 117, 120 (6th Cir. 1991)).
Consequently, plaintiff has failed to present a colorable claim
against the Southeast Ohio Regional Jail and plaintiff’s proposed
amendment is futile.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, Doc. No. 21, is therefore DENIED.
November 16, 2012
s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?