Williams v. Harris County Housing Authority

Filing 60

ORDER GRANTING 48 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; DENYING 48 Motion for Sanctions; DENYING 48 Motion for Extension of Time; DENYING 48 Motion; DENYING 48 Motion for Leave to File; denying 48 Motion for Protective Order, Terminating 44 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis.(Signed by Judge Gray H. Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

JUNE R. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

HARRIS COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

January 04, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION H-14-3570

ORDER
On November 10, 2015, plaintiff June R. Williams filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), for Sanctions, for Extension of Time, Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
Ruling on the Second Amended Complaint, for Preliminary Relief Reinstating Subsidized Rent, for
Leave to File Third Amended Complaint and for Protective Order. Doc. 48. The court has reviewed
Williams’s motion and defendant Harris County Housing Authority’s (“HCHA”) response, and finds
that her motion for IFP status should be GRANTED, her objections to the Magistrate Judge’s denial
of her motion for leave to amend should be OVERRULED, and her motions for leave to file a third
amended complaint and for preliminary injunction should be DENIED.
I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
On December 15, 2014, Williams filed this action and paid the filing fee. She now seeks IFP
status. The court has reviewed her declaration and finds that she is indigent. Her motion is therefore
GRANTED.

II. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING
The court’s scheduling order set June 12, 2015, as the date by which amended pleadings must
be filed. Williams timely filed a motion for leave to amend her complaint (Dkt. 22), and HCHA
opposed the amendment (Dkt. 25). On September 22, 2015, the Magistrate Judge denied Williams
leave to amend because the proposed complaint failed to adequately state claims for relief against
the four individual defendants. Dkt. 30.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), objections to a magistrate judge’s order
must be filed within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Here, Williams has failed to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order denying leave to
amend. Williams seeks an extension of time to object to the order. Dkt. 48-1 at 87. Williams has
failed to show good cause to extend the fourteen-day objection period. However, even if the court
were to grant the requested extension and consider Williams’s objection, she has failed to show that
the Magistrate Judge’s order is either clearly erroneous or contrary to law as required by Rule 72.
Williams’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of Williams’s motion for leave to amend is
OVERRULED.
III. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND SERVE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
On November 11, 2015, Williams filed for leave to file a third amended complaint. As
stated above, the scheduling order required motions for leave to amend be filed by June 10, 2015,
and discovery ended on October 31, 2015. Dkt. 19.
When a scheduling order deadline has expired, Rule 16(b) governs amendment of the
pleadings. S&W Enters., L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., 315 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003)(“We
take this opportunity to make clear that Rule 16(b) governs amendment of pleadings after a
2

scheduling order deadline has expired.”). Rule 16(b)(4) allows modification of the scheduling order
“only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” “The good cause standard requires the ‘party
seeking relief to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party
needing the extension.’” S&W Enters., L.L.C., 315 F.3d at 535 (internal citation omitted).
Williams has failed to set forth good cause for this late amendment. Discovery concluded
on October 31, 2015, and HCHA has filed a timely motion for summary judgment. Granting
Williams leave to amend to add four additional parties would require a significant continuance and
significant additional discovery. Williams’s third amended complaint is virtually identical to her
second amended complaint with the notable exception that she attempts to incorporate by reference
all facts contained in the pending 351-page motion, presumably in an effort to remedy the pleading
deficiencies found by the Magistrate Judge several months ago. See Dkt. 43 at 16.
Rule 8(a)(2) requires and short and plain statement of the claim. It would be patently
prejudicial to require four new parties to sift through a 351-page incorporated-by-reference document
and speculate on what facts support which of Williams’s five causes of action. Because Williams
has failed to show good cause for the late amendment and because the proposed complaint would
violate the spirit of Rule 8(a)(2), Williams’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint is
DENIED. The sole defendant in this action is the HCHA.
IV. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY RELIEF
Buried in the excessive, and often extraneous, factual recitations of the pending motion is a
request that Williams’s housing subsidy not be terminated. However, as the court understands the
facts recited by Williams, Williams continues to reside in Section 8 housing and there is no

3

immediate threat to her status as a Section 8 beneficiary. Williams has failed to allege the requisite
facts to support a claim for injunctive relief, and it is therefore DENIED.
V. CONCLUSION
Williams’s motion (Dkt. 48) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Her
motion for IFP status is GRANTED. Her objections to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of her motion
for leave to amend is OVERRULED. Her motion for leave to file a third amended complaint and
her motion for preliminary injunction are both DENIED.
Signed at Houston, Texas on January 4, 2016.

___________________________________
Gray H. Miller
United States District Judge

4