Shope v. Morrow County Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 17

OPINION AND ORDER granting 14 Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 10/9/2018. (ew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
WESLEY A. SHOPE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action 2:18-cv-214
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Jolson

MORROW COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint (Doc. 14) filed on August 30, 2018. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s Motion.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was a prisoner under the supervision of the Jackson County Sheriff’s

Department (“Jackson County Sheriff”). (Doc. 1, ¶ 8). Prior to his arrest, Plaintiff had been
treated for depression, suicidal ideation, and drug addiction. (Id., ¶ 7). Following his arrest in
February 2016, he informed the Jackson County Sheriff that he was prescribed medication to
treat his depression and drug addiction and requested medical attention for depression, suicidal
ideation, and drug addiction. (Id., ¶¶ 10–11). The Jackson County Sheriff provided Plaintiff
with a week’s supply of Vistaril, Phenergan, and/or Ibuprofen per the County’s detox protocol.
(Id., ¶ 12). However, he received no medical attention for depression and suicidal ideation while
in the custody of the Jackson County Sheriff. (Id., ¶ 13).
After serving part of his sentence in the custody of the Jackson County Sheriff, Plaintiff
was transferred to the custody of the Morrow County Sheriff’s Department (“Morrow County
Sheriff”) in March 2016. (Id., ¶ 15). At intake, he informed the Morrow County Sheriff that he

was prescribed medication to treat his depression, suicidal ideation, and drug addiction. (Id., ¶
17). The Morrow County Sheriff withheld Plaintiff’s detox medicine from the Jackson County
Sheriff, failed to record his history of mental health and substance abuse, and provided no
medical attention for Plaintiff’s depression and suicidal ideation. (Id., ¶¶ 19–29).
Plaintiff’s mental health subsequently deteriorated further when he was placed in “lock
down” with another suicidal inmate. (Id., ¶¶ 35–55). While in “lock down,” the Morrow County
Sheriff did not provide Plaintiff with any medication or medical attention. (Id., ¶¶ 40, 42).
Plaintiff and his cell mate both attempted suicide, resulting in Plaintiff breaking both legs and
suffering other additional injuries. (Id., ¶¶ 48–55).
In his Complaint, Plaintiff brought claims for deliberate indifference under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and spoliation of evidence. (Id., ¶¶ 57–89).
Defendants then filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4). In response, Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Leave to Amend (Doc. 7) to address the issues raised in Defendants’ Motion. Defendants did not
file an opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion, and the Court granted Plaintiff until July 27, 2018 to file
an amended complaint. (Doc. 11). Plaintiff failed to meet that deadline, and on August 16,
2018, the Court issued an Order directing him to show cause why the case should not be
dismissed for want of prosecution. (Doc. 13).
On August 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion. Plaintiff explained that, “[d]ue to
a docketing error,” he failed to timely amend his complaint and requested leave to file the First
Amended Complaint submitted with the Motion. (Doc. 14 at 2). Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s
Motion, arguing that the First Amended Complaint fails to state any cognizable claim and, as a
result, that any amendment would be futile. (Doc. 15). The time has passed for Plaintiff to file a
reply, and the Motion is now ripe for resolution.
II.

STANDARD
Trial courts enjoy broad discretion in deciding motions for leave to amend. See Gen.

Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 F.2d 1119, 1130 (6th Cir. 1990). When a party seeks leave of
2

court to amend a pleading, “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). This rule “reinforce[s] the principle that cases ‘should be tried on their
merits rather than the technicalities of pleadings.’” Inge v. Rock Finan. Corp., 388 F.3d 930, 936
(6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 559 (6th Cir. 1986)). In
interpreting this Rule, “[i]t should be emphasized that the case law in this Circuit manifests
liberality in allowing amendments to a complaint.” Parchman v. SLM Corp., 896 F.3d 728, 736
(6th Cir. 2018) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such 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 party by
virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.—the leave
sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.”
Pittman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 801 F.3d 612, 640–41 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
As noted above, a motion to amend may be denied if allowing the proposed amendment
would be futile. Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir. 2000).
“Amending would be futile if a proposed amendment would not survive a motion to
dismiss.” SFS Check, LLC v. First Bank of Del., 774 F.3d 351, 355 (6th Cir. 2014).
III.

DISCUSSION
Consistent with its prior Order (Doc. 7), and in light of the Rules’ liberal policy in favor

of amendment, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion. This case is in its early stages. To date,
the parties appear to have conducted limited discovery. Given the limited effort the parties have
expended on litigating the current operative complaint, the parties will not be prejudiced by the
filing of the First Amended Complaint. They will be free to conduct the necessary discovery and
refile any relevant dispositive motions. Moreover, permitting Plaintiff to file the First Amended
Complaint is consistent with “the principle that cases should be tried on their merits rather than
the technicalities of pleadings.” Inge, 388 F.3d at 936 (citation and internal quotation marks

3

omitted). Plaintiff’s proposed amendments comply with Rule 15(a)(2), and none of the factors
counseling against amendment apply.
The Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ futility argument. “At this stage of the
litigation, this Court is charged with determining whether the futility of an amendment is so
obvious that it should be disallowed.” Bear v. Delaware Cnty., Ohio, No. 2:14-CV-43, 2015 WL
1954451, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 28, 2015). The proposed amendments here meet this low bar. In
other words, the proposed amendments are not obviously futile. Moreover, Defendants’ futility
argument would require the Court to address directly the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. “[T]he
Court believes that it’s the better exercise of discretion to permit the amendment,” after which
Defendants may “raise their merits arguments” through a dispositive motion. Id. At that point,
“the matter will then be subject to proper consideration by the District Judge.” Id.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

(Doc. 14) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to file Doc. 14, pages 4–25 as the First
Amended Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: October 9, 2018

/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4