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)

Download PDF
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?