TAYLOR v. COUNTY OF CHESTER et al

Filing 76

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE HARVEY BARTLE, III ON 1/3/25. 1/3/25 ENTERED AND COPIES NOT MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(rf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHAWN D. TAYLOR
v.
COUNTY OF CHESTER, et al.

:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 23-4031

MEMORANDUM
Bartle, J.

January 3, 2025
Before the court is the Motion of plaintiff Shawn

Taylor "to Request Leave to File an Amended Complaint."

Taylor,

currently incarcerated at SCI-Rockview, brought suit pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.

His present claims assert unconstitutional

denial of dental and medical care when he was confined as a
pretrial detainee at Chester County Prison ("CCP").
I.
Taylor, acting pro se filed his initial complaint on
October 16, 2023 while still incarcerated at CCP.

(Doc. #2).

He named four defendants: the County of Chester, Prime Care
Medical, Inc., Warden Ronald Phillips, and Deputy Warden George
Roberts.

(Id. at 2). 1

Taylor sought to impose municipal

liability on the County of Chester and Prime Care and
supervisory liability on Phillips and Roberts based on the
conditions to which he had been subjected at CCP, beginning with
his arrival there on July 14, 2023.

He asserted claims for

1. The court adopts the pagination supplied by the CM/ECF
docketing system.
1

violations of his First Amendment right to "freedom of speech,"
Eighth Amendment rights, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

(Id.

at 5).
After granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the
court screened Taylor's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

The court concluded that Taylor had

sufficiently alleged his Fourteenth Amendment claims against
Chester County and Prime Care related to his alleged denial of
dental treatment and his alleged denial of medical treatment for
asthma.

Taylor v. Cnty. of Chester, 23-cv-4031, at *7 (E.D. Pa.

Nov. 6, 2023).
The court dismissed Taylor's remaining claims without
prejudice.

Id. at *8.

The court concluded that Taylor's

remaining allegations against Chester County and Prime Care were
insufficient to state a plausible claim against those
defendants, id. at *7, and that Taylor's claims against Phillips
and Roberts were "premised on generalized allegations that are
insufficient to support a plausible claim" of supervisory
liability under § 1983.

Id. at *8.

Because Taylor is pro se and because his claims were
dismissed without prejudice, the court gave Taylor the option to
file an amended complaint "in the event he can address the
defects the Court ha[d] noted." Id.

2

On November 24, 2023, Taylor exercised his option to
file an Amended Complaint--his second bite at the apple.
#7).

(Doc.

Rather than cure the defects in his initial allegations,

however, Taylor named in his Amended Complaint the previously
dismissed Deputy Warden Roberts and added three entirely new
defendants: Warden Howard Holland, "Karen Murphy, HSA," and Dr.
Martin Zarkoski.

Id. at 3.

Taylor also included a claim for

deprivation of his Sixth Amendment "access to courts."

Id. at

7.
Nevertheless, "[t]he factual allegations in the
Amended Complaint essentially mirror[ed] those in Taylor's
initial complaint."

Taylor v. Cnty. of Chester, 23-cv-4031,

2023 WL 8358345, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2023).

Accordingly,

Taylor's Fourteenth Amendment claims against Chester County and
Prime Care based on their alleged policies pertaining to his
dental treatment and asthma were allowed to proceed.

Id. at *9.

The remaining claims were dismissed--this time with prejudice.
(Doc. #15).
In May, 2024, this court entered a Scheduling Order.
(Doc. #45).
way.

Pursuant to that Order, discovery is already under

Defendants have deposed Taylor, and fact discovery is

scheduled to be completed by the end of February, 2025.
On July 11, 2024, after the court had already entered
its scheduling order, Taylor filed a "Motion . . . to Be Moved
3

Off the Prisoner Rights Panel and Request to Amend and
Supplement the Complaint." (Doc. #53).
Off the Panel was denied as moot. 2

The Motion to Be Moved

(Doc. #55).

This was

Taylor's third bite at the apple at drafting his complaint.

The

court denied Taylor's motion to amend his complaint without
prejudice on July 27, 2023 as Taylor had failed to attach a copy
of the amended complaint he sought to file.

(Doc. #57).

On August 5, 2024 Taylor took his fourth bite when he
filed what amounts to a second Motion for Leave to File an
Amended Complaint. 3

(Doc. #59).

copy of the Amended Complaint.

Again, he did not provide a
In his motion, Taylor explained

that although he would "not be deviating from his Dental [sic]
and asthmatic issues," the second amended complaint would
"clarify the facts, dates, times and defendants along with new
claims involving the deliberately [sic] indifferent [sic]
actions by the defendants."

He further sought to add "newly

discovered defendants . . . Karen Murphy and Dr. Martin
Zarkoski."

These two individuals were not newly discovered as

they had previously been dismissed as defendants.
2. The court had notified its Prisoner Civil Rights Panel of
this action after Taylor filed a Motion for Appointment of
Counsel. (Mot., ECF No. 19). However, by April, 2024 it
appeared that no lawyer on the Panel had agreed to represent
Taylor. The action was thus removed from the panel on April 16,
2024, (Order, ECF No. 40).
3. Taylor's filing is entitled "Motion in Reply to Defendants
Motion in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File an
Amended Complaint."
4

The court again denied Taylor's motion without
prejudice.

He had failed to provide a copy of the proposed

second amended complaint and he did not "appear to seek leave to
add any claims or parties that were not previously considered
and dismissed by this court."

(Doc. #68 at 3).

pleaded "any specific facts."

Id.

Nor had he

II.
Taylor filed the present Motion to Request Leave to
File an Amended Complaint on November 18, 2024.

(Doc. #69).

This time, he attached a proposed amended complaint.
Taylor seeks to add nine defendants.

In it,

That number includes three

defendants who had previously been dismissed with prejudice:
Deputy Warden Roberts, Karen Murphy, and Dr. Martin Zarkoski.
Id. at 6.

It also includes six defendants not previously

identified in Taylor's earlier pleadings: Director Tim
Mulrooney, Daysia Porrata, Megan MacMinn, Jaclyn Casey, and
Sergeants Matthew Taylor and Mark DiOrio.

Id.

Taylor's proposed amended complaint includes more
detail than Taylor's previous pleadings.

As to Porrata,

MacMinn, and Casey--all medical staff at CCP--Taylor avers that
they falsified his medical records and logged "inconsistent
recordings" in said records.

Id. at 8.

As to Sergeants Taylor

and DiOrio, Taylor claims that the officers retaliated against
his filing grievances and complaints by refusing to escort him
5

to medical appointments and by marking certain other
appointments "refused," despite Taylor never having been aware
of such appointments.

Id. at 9.

Taylor further alleges that

Sergeants Taylor and DiOrio spoke openly about their
retaliation.

Id.

Finally, Taylor asserts that Director

Mulrooney and Deputy Warden Roberts were aware of these actions.
Defendants Chester County and Prime Care oppose
Taylor's Motion on the ground that his proposed amendments would
be futile.

See (Doc. #7); (Doc. #73).
III.
A party may amend its pleading only with the opposing

party's written consent or with the court's leave.

Fed. R. Civ.

P. 15(a).

"The court should freely give leave when justice so

requires."

Id.

"The decision whether to grant or to deny a

motion for leave to amend rests within the sound discretion of
the district court."

United States v. Sun Healthcare Grp. Inc.,

Civil Action No. 16-843, 2024 WL 1640983, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Apr.
16, 2024) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
"Among the grounds that could justify a denial of leave to amend
are undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, and
futility."

Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d Cir. 2000).
"Implicit in the concept of 'undue delay' is the

premise that Plaintiffs, in the exercise of due diligence, could
have sought relief from the court earlier."
6

Romero v. Allstate

Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 01-3894, 2010 WL 2996963, at *5 (E.D.
Pa. July 28, 2010) (quoting In re Pressure Sensitive Labelstock
Antitrust Litig., MDL 03-1556, 2006 WL 433891, at *1 (M.D. Pa.
Feb. 21, 2006).
All of Taylor's claims stem from his alleged personal
experiences and interactions while at CCP.

Through the exercise

of due diligence, he could have sought relief from the court
much earlier.

Taylor filed his initial complaint against four

defendants over a year ago.

When some of the claims in that

complaint failed for lack of factual specificity, Taylor was
granted leave to amend in order to rectify those shortcomings.
Taylor has thereafter filed an amended complaint, a proposed
amended complaint, and several motions to amend, which would
include entirely new defendants and claims, of which Taylor
clearly had already been aware.
explanation for this delay.

Furthermore, Taylor offers no

He simply contends in a prior

motion without any specificity that "facts have come to light in
discovery."

(Doc. #59 at 4).

Allowing any amended complaint at this time would
cause undue delay and would cause prejudice to defendants.
action is now over a year old.

This

The parties are well into

discovery, and the defendants have already taken the deposition
of Taylor.

Fact discovery is set to be completed by the end of

February 2025.
7

Accordingly, his motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint will be denied.

8