Harrison v. Douglas County et al
Filing
41
Opinion and Order. Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint/Petition 30 is denied. Signed on 12/2/2011 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (jw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
SKYLAR HARRISON,
Plaintiff.
Civ. No. 10-1387-TC
OPINlON AND ORDER
v.
DOUGLAS COUNTY ET AL.,
Defendants.
Coffin, Magistrate Judge:
On November 12,2010, plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of his
constitutional right to substantive due process, negligence, deliberate indifference, and a municipal
liability claim. Currently before me is plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint by
1 - OPINION AND ORDER
adding Conmed Healthcare Management, Inc. ("Conmed") and two ofits employees, Stephen Baker
and Bonnie Reaney, as defendants. (# 30). Specifically, plaintiff seeks to add a deliberate
indifference claim against these new defendants. The County defendants oppose plaintiff's motion.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In the proposed amended compliant, plaintiff alleges that he has a history of severe mental
illness and criminal charges stemming from his illness, including unauthorized use of a vehicle,
resisting arrest, and criminal possession of a forged instrument. Plaintiff was arrested at the Job
Corps camp where he was working on November 12,2008 and taken to the Douglas County Jail.
Plaintiff alleges that his history of mental illness violence was well-known to both his employer and
his mother, and would have been available upon inquiry. Plaintiff claims he was booked into jail
and placed in a holding cell without being given the screening or mental health medications
mandated by Douglas County policy.
While in the holding cell, plaintiff got into a fight with other inmates. A deputy broke up the
fight and put plaintiff in an isolation cell ("ISO-4 "). Shortly thereafter, other inmates told jail staff
that plaintiff was acting strangely. A deputy put plaintiff in a wrist-lock escort hold, breaking his
arm. At the time of the incident Conmed Healthcare, Inc contracted with Douglas County to supply
medical and mental health care to Douglas County Inmates. At times relevant to this action, Conmet
employed Bonnie Reany and Stephen Baker.
On May 7, 2009, plaintiff served a tort claims notice on Douglas County. The tort claims
notice stated that he planned to file suit against Douglas County. (# 35). The notice stated that "[t]he
federal law claims against Douglas County and its departments, officers, employees, andlor agents,
arise out of the County's violation of Mr. Harrison's civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fourth,
2 - OPINION AND ORDER
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, due to deprivation of due process,
deliberate indifference to Mr. Harrison's health and safety; and policies, customs, or practices that
allowed such violations to occur." (Id.) On November 12,2010, the same day the two year statute
of limitations ranI, plaintiff filed a complaint in federal court against Douglas County, Deputy
Provencal, and Deputy Case. Plaintiff now seeks to amend his complaint to add a section § 1983
deliberate indifference claim against Conmed and its two employees Reaney and Baker. At oral
argument, plaintiff argued that it was only during discovery that he leamed that Conmed contracted
with the County to provide medical and mental health services to the jail. Defendant County
opposes the motion, arguing that the deliberate indifference claim is barred by the statute of
limitations. Specifically, the County notes that, as evidenced by the tort claim notice, plaintiffwas
aware that he might have a deliberate indifference claim in May of2009 and did not need additional
discovery to make him aware of this potential claim.
DISCUSSION
Rule I 5(a) provides that a pleading may be amended freely "when justice so requires." Fed.
R. Civ. Proc. 15(a). "A district court does not err in denying leave to amend where the amendment
would be futile ... or would be subject to dismissal." Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th
Cir. 1991); see also, Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). An amendment is futile
if "no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid
and sufficient claim or defense." Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988).
Amendments not made within applicable statutes oflimitations are futile. See Bonin, 59 F.3d at 846.
IOregon's two year statute of limitations applies to plaintiff's section 1983 claims.
Cooper v. Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989).
3 - OPINION AND ORDER
This prohibition applies especially to cases where the facts giving rise to a new claim were known
to the plaintiff at the outset of the case. See Bonin, 59 FJd at 846; ~ also, Garcia v. Vilsack,628
F. Supp. 2d 1306 (D. N.M. 2009)(holding that a motion to amend a complaint after the statute of
limitations had run was barred because plaintiffhad complained to her organization before securing
counsel and therefore was aware of all relevant facts before she filed her original complaint). In
cases where a party was aware of the facts that led to the injury at the time of the original complaint,
courts tend to disallow motions to amend. Id.
If, however, a party does not become aware of facts which lead to a new claim until after the
statute oflimitations for the complaint has run, the amendment is nottime-barred. Island Creek Coal
Co. v. Lake Shore, Inc., 832 F.2d 274(4th Cir. 1987). In Island Creek, the plaintiffs discovered facts
supporting a new claim after the statute oflirnitations had run and sought to amend their claim. Id.
at 278. The court found that the amendment was proper even though the case had been pending for
three years. Id. at 279. The court was unwilling to deny the motion ifit meant that plaintiffs would
be "denied the opportunity to a hearing on the merits of their claim, which they brought before the
court with reasonable promptness after the discovery ofthe facts supporting their claim, facts which
had been known to the defendant for a considerable length of time." Id.
Here, plaintiffs May 2009 tort notice specifically mentioned a section 1983 deliberate
indifference claim. (#35). Then, as noted above, plaintiff decided not to include that claim in his
November 12, 2010 complaint filed in federal court. During oral argument, plaintiffs counsel
argued that she leamed that Conmed had contracted to provide medical and mental health care for
jail inmates and had created the forms used during the intake process. This, however, does not
explain why plaintifffailed to include this claim in his original complaint. Unlike the situation in
4 - OPINION AND ORDER
the Island Creek case, plaintiff knew before he filed his November 2010 complaint that he had a
potential deliberate indifference claim. The record shows that he did not need additional discovery
to make him aware of his potential deliberate indifference claim. The statute of limitations for
plaintiffs claim ran on November 12,2010. There is no mention of a deliberate indifference claim
in his original complaint and, thus, no relation back of this claim. Accordingly, his deliberate
indifference claim is time barred and amendment would be futile.
CONCLUSION
Because amendment would be futile, plaintiff s motion to amend his complaint is denied.
This matter is set for a scheduling conference on December 15, 2011. (#40). The court will set
discovery and dispositive motion deadlines at that time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this
~y of December, 2011.
United Sta s
5 - OPINION AND ORDER
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?