Rouse v. PA Department of Corrections/SCI-Retreat et al
Filing
90
MEMORANDUM A separate Order will issue.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 7/24/17. (jfg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CALVIN ROUSE,
Plaintiff
Civil NO.3: 13-cv-1808
(Judge Mariani)
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants
MEMORANDUM
I.
Introduction
Plaintiff, Calvin Rouse, a former inmate confined at the Retreat State Correctional
Institution, in Hunlock Creek, Pennsylvania, ("SCI-Retreat"), 1 initiated the instant civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. (Doc. 1). The matter is proceeding via an amended
complaint. (Doc. 40). Named as Defendants are the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections, and Correctional Officers Sweeney and Keefer. Previously by Memorandum
and Order dated January 4, 2016, the Court granted Defendants' motion for judgment on
the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) and closed this action.
(Docs. 68, 69).
Presently before the Court is Rouse's motion (Doc. 80) for leave to file a second
In an effort to ascertain the custodial status of Rouse, the Court accessed the Vinelink online
inmate locator, which revealed that he is no longer in custody. See https:llvinelink.com/#/search. See also
(Doc. 83).
I
amended complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion to
amend.
II.
Discussion
The filing of an amended complaint is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a):
!
f
t
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its
pleading once as a matter of course within:
I
I
,
I
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(8) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is
required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21
days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (0,
whichever is earlier.
(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend
its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or
the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when
justice so requires.
FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a).
Rouse's original complaint was filed on July 1, 2013, naming Defendant Sweeney
and John Doe. (Doc. 1). On August 23, 2013, Rouse filed a supplement to the complaint.
(Doc. 9). On March 28, 2014, Defendant Sweeney filed a motion dismiss the complaint.
(Doc. 26). Rouse then filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, which the
Court granted. (Docs. 32, 39). On August 7,2014, Rouse filed his amended complaint.
{Doc. 40). Defendant Sweeney answered the amended complaint and filed a motion for
2
I
!
I
!
I
I
!
judgment on the pleadings. (Docs. 42, 43). Rouse subsequently filed a motion to further
amend the amended complaint in order to identify Keefer as the John Doe Defendant.
(Doc. 50). The Court granted the motion to amend and directed service on Defendant
Keefer. (Doc. 53). Defendants Sweeney and Keefer then filed an amended answer to the
amended complaint. (Doc. 61). On July 14, 2015, the Court denied the first motion for
judgment on the pleadings. {Doc. 63). On July 14, 2015, Defendants Sweeney and Keefer
'filed a renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. 64). On January 4,2016, the
Court granted Defendants' renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings and entered
judgment in favor of Defendants. (Docs. 68, 69). Rouse's instant motion for leave to 'file a
second amended complaint was not filed until May 24, 2016, past the time period allotted
for filing an amended complaint as a matter of course. (Doc. 80). Rouse has not obtained
the opposing parties' written consent to amend. Thus, at this point, Rouse is required to
request leave of court to file such a pleading. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2).
In the instant motion to amend, Rouse states that he "has claims that have been
overlooked" and seeks "correction[ ] and clarification" of the facts of his claims. (Doc. 81,
pp. 1-2). Rouse's request to amend pertains to the same Defendants and same causes of
action against these Defendants. (Jd. at p. 1). In light of Rouse's pro se status, and in
accordance with the Court's Order granting Rouse's motions for reconsideration, the motion
to amend will be granted.
3
Aseparate Order will issue.
Date: July 42017
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?