HARRIS v. DOE et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying 42 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 3/30/2015. (bap)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ERNEST HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE, BRIAN SIHMITT,
OFFICER OMALLEY, OFFICER
ZIGARELLA, OFFICER SPANGIER,
and REGINA MCDONALD, Chief of
Police
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-279

United States Magistrate Judge
Cynthia Reed Eddy

MEMORNADUM ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Ernest Harris’ motion to amend his amended
complaint. (ECF No. 42). Specifically, Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint to add a federal
prosecutor who was involved in his criminal proceedings. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, which
is also pending before the Court, asserts that “a federal prosecutor (not Defendants) properly
pursued charges against [Plaintiff].” (Def.s’ Mot. to Dismiss ¶ 5, ECF No. 30). As a result of
this statement by Defendants, Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint to add the federal
prosecutor in his lawsuit in which he is seeking recovery for malicious prosecution. Plaintiff
contends that the federal prosecutor “is definately [sic] also a relevant participant in my
complaint for malicious prosecution” because he “recharged [Plaintiff] federally” after the state
court charges were already filed. (Pl.’s Mot. to Am. ¶¶ 2-3, 5, ECF No. 42).
Rule 15(a)(1)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court should
“freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” See also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,
182 (1962); Lorenz v. CSX Corp., 1 F.3d 1406, 1414 (3d Cir. 1993). Nonetheless, “‘[a]mong the
grounds that could justify a denial of leave to amend are undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive,
1

prejudice, and futility.’” Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting In re
Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig. 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997). “‘Futility’ means that
the complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” Id.
Although the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is pursuing this action pro se, and thus his
motion is entitled to a more liberal construction, allowing amendment here would clearly be
futile and result in undue delay.

Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for acts

“intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Kalina v. Fletcher, 522
U.S. 118, 125 (1997) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)). To determine
immunity, the Court must examine “the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the
actor who performed it.” Id. (citing Forrester, 484 U.S. at 229).
Here, in his motion to amend, Plaintiff has indicated that he wishes to sue the federal
prosecutor for bringing federal charges against Plaintiff. Such actions are entirely related to his
prosecutorial role in Plaintiff’s criminal proceedings, and, therefore, the federal prosecutor is
entitled to absolute immunity. See Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430 (holding that allegations of false
testimony and suppressed material evidence were “intimately associated with the judicial phase
of the criminal process, and thus were functions to which the reasons for absolute immunity
apply with full force”). As a result, because this individual is immune from suit, allowing
Plaintiff to amend the amended complaint to add this individual to the lawsuit would be futile.
To that end, allowing amendment would also result in undue delay of several months because, as
indicated above, there is also a separate pending motion to dismiss filed by the existing
Defendants, which would be rendered moot if an amended complaint were allowed. Given the
absolute immunity, the undue delay, and unnecessary expenses which the parties and the Court

2

would face if amendment were allowed, Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add the
federal prosecutor that charged Plaintiff in his criminal proceedings is denied.
AND NOW, this 30th day of March, 2015, the Court, having considered Plaintiff’s to
Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 42), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
said motion is DENIED.
By the Court:
s/ Cynthia Reed Eddy
Cynthia Reed Eddy
United States Magistrate Judge

cc:

all registered counsel via CM-ECF

ERNEST HARRIS
07325-068
FCI Gilmer
PO Box 6000
Glenville, WV 26351

3