Souffrant v. Iseman

Filing 132

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 128 MOTION to Amend/Correct and directs the Clerk of Court to docket the proposed Second Amended Complaint at ECF No. 128 as a new docket entry. Counsel for Defendant should advise the court by January 27, 2020 whether his is authorized to accept service on behalf of the new defendants. (Specific Document due by 1/27/2020.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 1/16/2020. (lbak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Thomas Souffrant,
Plaintiff,
vs.
C.J. Iseman, Deputy Sheriff of
Clarendon County,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 0:18-388-SVH

ORDER

Thomas Souffrant (“Plaintiff”) brought this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. This matter
comes before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. [ECF No.
128]. This motion having been fully briefed, it is ripe for disposition. [ECF
Nos. 130, 131].
I.

Factual and Procedural History
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit on February 9, 2018.

[ECF No. 1]. In his original Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that on July 12,
2016, he was stopped by deputies of the Clarendon County Sheriff’s office,
including deputy C.J. Iseman and “two other sheriff’s deputies of the
Clarendon County Sheriff’s Office.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff alleged that the officers
asked to search his vehicle and he refused. Thereafter, Plaintiff was told to
exit the vehicle, and “[w]ithout any warning or instructions from Iseman or

other deputies, one deputy withdrew his revolver pointing it at me and
deputy Iseman and the other deputy both grabbed me and lifting me off the
ground and raising me several feet in the air and then slammed me on the
ground.” Id. In the section of the Complaint identifying the parties, Plaintiff
identified Deputy Iseman and also identified “Deputy Sheriff #2, name
currently unknown” and “Deputy Sheriff #3, name currently unknown.” Id. at
2.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 24, 2018, in which he
specified the nature of his claims—claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
violation of his constitutional rights, specifically for an illegal traffic stop and
search and for excessive force. [ECF No. 39]. The case proceeded through
discovery. During discovery, Plaintiff, still acting pro se, made multiple
unsuccessful attempts to obtain the video footage of the police stop. First, on
April 16, 2018, he filed a motion for discovery, “requesting the surveillance
from the Clarendon County Sheriff[’s] Office” from “July 12, 2016.” [ECF No.
25]. On June 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “motion to receive full discovery from
Clarendon County Sheriff Office” in which he specifically requested the
“audio and video from the night of July 12, 2016.” [ECF No. 45]. Plaintiff
argued that he needed his video for evidence and “because it shows the
excessive force used by Defendants.” Id. On July 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed his
“Second Motion for Production of Documents” in which he asked the Sheriff’s
2

Office to release the video footage of the traffic stop to the court. [ECF No.
63].1 Plaintiff was not provided with the video or the opportunity to view it
while he remained unrepresented.
The court granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s search and seizure
claim, but denied summary judgment on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim.
[ECF No. 111]. On September 16, 2019, the court appointed counsel to
represent Plaintiff. [ECF No. 121]. Thereafter, Plaintiff obtained a copy of the
video footage he had been seeking since the beginning of this case. According
to Plaintiff’s motion to amend, after reviewing the video and asking
defendant’s counsel to confirm the identities of the individuals in the video, it
became clear to Plaintiff that Officers Grice and Braxton were the two
officers who threw him to the ground. [ECF No. 128]. Plaintiff seeks leave to
amend the complaint to add Officers Ernie Grice and Brandon Braxton as
defendants to this action.
II.

Standard on a Motion to Amend
Generally, a motion to amend a pleading is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a). Rule 15(a)(2) provides that “a party may amend its pleading only with
the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should

The undersigned denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to produce the
video to the court, but stated Plaintiff could renew the motion upon the
undersigned’s consideration of dispositive motions, as typically defendants
include any video available with their dispositive motions. [ECF No. 65].
1

3

freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Under
Rule 15, a court should deny a motion to amend “only where it would be
prejudicial, there has been bad faith, or the amendment would be futile.”

Nourison Rug Corp. v. Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295, 298 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing
HCMF Corp. v. Allen, 238 F.3d 273, 276–77 (4th Cir. 2001)). “This liberal
rule gives effect to the federal policy in favor of resolving cases on their
merits instead of disposing of them on technicalities.” Laber v. Harvey, 438
F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc).
Although Rule 15 directs courts to allow amendment of pleadings freely
“when justice so requires,” after the deadline for amending pleadings set
forth in a scheduling order has passed, a party must first demonstrate good
cause under Rule 16, Fed. R. Civ. P., for the court to allow the amendment.

Nourison Rug Corp. v. Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295, 298 (4th Cir. 2008). “[G]ood
cause means that scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite a party’s
diligent efforts.” Dilmar Oil Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 986 F. Supp. 959,
980 (D.S.C. 1997) (citation omitted).
III.

Analysis
Defendant argues Plaintiff has not shown good cause to amend because

the delays in identifying the deputies at the scene of the arrest were due to
Plaintiff’s lack of diligence and carelessness. [ECF No. 130 at 3]. Defendant
notes that Plaintiff’s motions for discovery were denied because the court had
4

advised Plaintiff discovery requests should be served on the party and not
filed with the court. Defendant argues Plaintiff’s attempts to seek the video
were not directed to him. [ECF No. 130]. However, the court ruled as follows
on one of Plaintiff’s motions for discovery related to the video:
Plaintiff filed three separate motions requesting various forms of
discovery. [ECF Nos. 45, 52, 53]. Plaintiff has previously been
advised that discovery requests need not be filed with the court,
but should be served on Defendants. [ECF No. 26]. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s motions are denied, as they prematurely seek to
compel discovery responses from Defendants before the requests
were served on Defendants. However, in this limited instance
only, the court construes discovery requests as served on
Defendants through CM/ECF on July 24, 2018, and they are
directed to respond within the time limits prescribed by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
[ECF No. 61 (emphasis added)]. Although it is unclear to the court why
Defendant apparently failed to comply with the court’s order, the
undersigned cannot conclude Plaintiff displayed a lack of diligence in his
attempts to obtain the video.
The undersigned grants Plaintiff’s motion to amend and directs the
Clerk of Court to docket the proposed Second Amended Complaint at ECF
No. 128 as a new docket entry. Counsel for Defendant should advise the court
by January 27, 2020, whether he is authorized to accept service on behalf of
the new defendants. If counsel is not authorized to accept service and the
court needs to direct discovery regarding the home addresses of the new
defendants for service purposes (to be provided to counsel only), it will do so.
5

If counsel believe additional time is needed (past March 16, 2020) for
discovery, they are directed to file a motion by January 31, 2020.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 16, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

6