Danielson v. Huether et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying 31 Motion to Amend Complaint; denying 32 Motion to Amend the First Amended Complaint; and denying 33 Motion to Join Parties. Signed by U.S. District Judge Roberto A. Lange on 8/26/2019. (CLR) Modified on 8/26/2019 delivered to Mr. Danielson via US Postal (CLR).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
%■

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRUCE DANIELSON,

4:18-CV-04039-RAL

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO AMEND

vs.

MUCE HUETHER,
Defendant.

On December 19, 2018, this Court entered an Opinion and Order Granting in Part
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 22. In that 44-page Opinion and Order this Court explained
why pro se Plaintiff Bruce Danielson had a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged First

Amendment retaliation against, former Sioux Falls Mayor Defendant Michael Huether and why
Danielsonihad stated no viable claims against other Defendants he named—^David Pfeifle, Marty
Jackley, Heather Hitterdal, City of Sioux Falls, State of South Dakota, and John Doe—for alleged
civil conspiracy and alleged discriminatory treatment of Danielson. Doc. 22.
This Court entered a Rule 16 Scheduling Order and then at Danielson's request a First

Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Order setting a May 27, 2019 deadline on any motions to amend or
add parties. Doc. 30. On May 29, 2019, Danielson filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint, Doc.
31, naming all of the same Defendants that this Court had dismissed— David Pfeifle, Marty
Jackley, Heather Hitterdal, City of Sioux Falls, State of South Dakota, and John Doe—and

attaching a proposed 92-page Amended Complaint. Docs. 31, 31-2. Then, on May 30, 2019,

1

Danielson filed a Motion and Brief to Amend the First Amended Complaint, this time with an
attached 167-page Second Amended Complaint seeking to add still further parties and claims.
Docs. 32, 32-2. Danielsoii also filed a Motion and Brief to Join Parties on May 30, 2019. Doc.
33.

'

Although leave to amend the complaint typically is freely given, whether to permit
amendment of the complaint or addition of parties is committed to the court's discretion. Ponoalii
V. Corr. Med. Serv.. 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008)(citing Bell v. Allstate Life Ins. Co.. 160
F.3d 452,454(8th Cir. 1998));^Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A court may deny a motion for leave
to amend if there has been undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive by the movant, repeated

failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the nonmoving
party, or futility ofthe amendment. Fomanv. Davis. 371 U.S. 178, 182(19621: Ponoalii. 512 F.3d

at 497. Danielson's amendment could be denied as tardy, albeit by just three calendar days, and
undue delay. S^ Freeman v. Busch. 349 F.3d 582, 589(8th Cir. 2003)(requiring good cause for
delay when party files a motion to amend after a deadline in a scheduling order for amending
pleadings). Danielson after all has not come upon any recently discovered information triggering

his amended and second amended complaint or meriting adding parties, but is simply trying to add
back parties—^plus more parties—and claims that this Court dismissed.
The more compelling ground on which to deny Danielspn's motion to amend, however, is

futility of the amendment. A proposed amendment to a pleading can be denied if it could not
withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Humphreys v. Roche Biomedical Lab. Inc.. 990 F.2d
1078, 1082(8th Cir. 1993); Weimer v. Amen. 870 F.2d 1400, 1407 (8th Cir. 1989). This Court

explained at length why Danielson's claims positing a conspiracy against him or for a RICO
violation or for Monell liability could not withstand dismissal. Simply by amplifying his past

allegations and naming more city officials Danielson does not thereby justify having this Court
reverse itself. This Court has allowed Danielson to proceed with the arguably far-fetched claim
that former mayor Huether retaliated against Danielson for Danielson's exercise offree speech by,
among other things, striking Danielson violently in a public setting. Merely because such a claim
survives dismissal should not have emboldened Danielson to seek to claim, as he does now, that

persons other than Danielson allegedly were ill treated too. Danielson has no standing to assert
claims for others. Barrows v. Jackson. 346 U.S. 249. 255 (1953). This Court took 44 pages to

explain why only the claims against Huether survived dismissal and refers the parties back to that
analysis.
For good cause, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion to Amend Complaint, Doc. 31; the Motion to Amend the First
Amended Complaint, Doc. 32; and the Motion to Join Parties, Doc. 33, are denied.

DATED this

day of August, 2019.
BY THE COURT:

ROBERTO A. LANGJ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE