Hudson v. Carberry et al

Filing 56

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 22 Amended Complaint filed by Kendall Hudson, 43 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Killeen, Tracey Wilson, Reeder, Laurel Harry, Carberry, Moeller, Coillins, Anthony Kot. Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 8/28/17. (jam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KENDALL HUDSON,
Plaintiff,

Civil No. 3: 15-cv-1282
(Judge Mariani)

v.
CARBERRY, et al.,
Defendants

MEMORANDUM

I.

Background
On June 30, 2015, Plaintiff Kendall Hudson ("Hudson"), an inmate formerly confined

at the State Correctional Institution, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, initiated the instant action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Named as Defendants are correctional officers
Carberry, Moeller, Collins, Killeen and Reeder, hearing examiners Kot and Wilson, and
Superintendent Harry. (Id. at pp. 2-3). On September 8, 2015, Defendants filed an answer
to the original complaint. (Doc. 15). On October 8, 2015, Hudson filed an amended
complaint wherein he named the eight originally named Defendants, as well as newly
named Defendants Digby, Kuzar, and Cleaver. (Doc. 22). On January 4, 2017, Defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 as to
the claims in the original complaint. For the reasons set forth below, Hudson's proposed
amended complaint will be accepted and the motion for summary judgment will be
dismissed without prejudice to Defendants' right to renew the motion as to the amended

complaint.

II.

Discussion
The filing of an amended complaint is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15(a):
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once
as a matter of course within:
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) 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
whichever is earlier.

m.

(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. C1v. P. 15(a). This Court's Local Rules require that a proposed amended pleading
accompany a motion. See M.D. Pa. Local Rule 15.1(a). The "amended pleading must be
retyped or reprinted so that it will be complete in itself." Id.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has adopted a liberal
approach to the amendment of pleadings in order to ensure that "a particular claim will be
decided on the merits rather than on technicalities." Dole v. Arco Chem. Co., 921 F.2d 484,
486-87 (3d Cir. 1990). Amendment, however, is not automatic. See Breiner v. Litwhiler,
245 F. Supp. 2d 614, 623 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (citing Dover Steel Co., Inc. v. Hartford Accident

2

and Indent., 151 F.R.D. 570, 574 (E.D. Pa. 1993)). Leave to amend should be granted
absent a showing of "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 the allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc."

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Oran v. Stafford, 226 F.3d 275, 291
(3d Cir. 2000). Futility of amendment occurs when the complaint, as amended, does not
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec.

Litig., 114F.3d1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997).
Based on the procedural history of this case, the Court finds that Hudson may file an
amended complaint as a matter of course. Hudson's original complaint was filed on June
30, 2015. (Doc. 1). Defendants filed their answer to the original complaint on September 8,
2015. (Doc. 15). Hudson then filed a proposed amended complaint on October 19, 2015.
(Doc. 22). In light of Hudson's prose status, the proposed amended complaint will be
accepted under the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B).
The Court must also consider whether accepting the proposed amended complaint
would result in prejudice to the Defendants. Prejudice may result under Rule 15(a) when a
proposed amendment "would result in additional discovery, cost, and preparation to defend
against new facts or new theories." Cureton v. Nat'/ Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 252 F.3d 267,
273 (3d Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Leave to amend should be granted unless equitable

3

considerations render it otherwise unjust. Arthur v. Maersk, Inc., 434 F.3d 196, 204 (3d Cir.
2006) (citations omitted). Factors that may justify denying leave to amend are undue delay,
bad faith, and futility. Id. The Court finds that accepting Hudson's proposed amended
complaint would not result in prejudice to the Defendants. 1 In the proposed amended
complaint, Hudson names the eight originally named Defendants and sets forth the same
allegations against those Defendants. Hudson clearly identifies, by numbered paragraph,
each allegation that was set forth in the original complaint and re-alleged in the proposed
amended complaint. (Doc. 22, ~~ 3-49, 54, 58-60). Hudson also seeks to add
constitutional claims against three new Defendants relating to the same conduct in the
original complaint. Hudson clearly identifies each new allegation set forth in the proposed
amended complaint. (Doc. 22,

~~

50-53, 55-57). Hudson did not exhibit any undue delay in

filing his proposed amended complaint, nor did he act in bad faith or with improper motive.
The Court notes that, as a matter of law, an amended complaint takes the place of
the original complaint, effectively invalidating any original complaint. See Palakovic v.

Wetzel, 854 F.3d 209, 220 (3d Cir. 2017) ("in general, an amended pleading ... supersedes
the earlier pleading and renders the original pleading a nullity"). Thus, any motion
challenging the original complaint is now moot. See 6 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller

&Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice &Procedure§ 1476 (2d ed. 1990) ("A pleading that has

1

Defendants have not opposed nor moved to strike Hudson's proposed amended complaint.
4

been amended ... supersedes the pleading it modifies .... Once an amended pleading is
interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case and any
subsequent motion made by an opposing party should be directed at the amended
pleading"). Consequently, the pending motion (Doc. 43) for summary judgment will be
dismissed without prejudice.

Ill.

Conclusion
Leave to amend should be liberally given "when justice so requires." FED. R. C1v. P.

15(a)(2). Hudson's proposed amended complaint will be accepted as filed, and the pending
motion (Doc. 43) for summary judgment will be dismissed without prejudice to Defendants'
right to renew the motion as to the amended complaint. A separate Order will issue.

Date: August~. 2017

5