Doe v. Harris County, Texas et al
Filing
114
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 102 Opposed MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Case 4:16-cv-02133 Document 114 Filed on 05/19/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 15
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 19, 2020
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JANE DOE,
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
v.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS;
and TAYLOR ADAMS, Individually,
Defendants.
David J. Bradley, Clerk
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-2133
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Jane Doe, brings this action against Harris County,
Texas, and Harris County employee, Taylor Adams ("Adams"), in his
individual
capacity,
for
damages
based
on
allegations
that
"[d]efendants (1) unconstitutionally deprived Plaintiff of (a) her
protected liberty interests and (b) right to counsel and (2) failed
or refused to provide her with even a scintilla of reasonable
medical care." 1
Pending before the court is Plaintiff's Opposed
Motion for Leave to File Her Fourth Amended Complaint ("Plaintiff's
Motion to
Amend")
(Docket
Entry No. 102).
For
the
reasons
explained below, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend will be denied.
1
p. 1.
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint,
Docket Entry No. 35,
Case 4:16-cv-02133 Document 114 Filed on 05/19/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 15
I. Standard of Review
If a scheduling order has been entered establishing a deadline
for amendments to pleadings, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)
provides the standard for requests to amend that are filed before
the scheduling order's deadline has expired, and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 16(b) provides the standard for requests to amend
that are filed after the scheduling order's deadline has expired.
Marathon Financial Insurance,
Inc., v. Ford Motor Co., 591 F.3d
458, 470 (5th Cir. 2009).
Rule 15(a) states that "[t]he court should freely give leave
[to amend] when justice so requires."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
"A decision to grant leave is within the discretion of the court,
although if the court 'lacks a "substantial reason" to deny leave,
its discretion "is not broad enough to permit denial."'"
State of
Louisiana v. Litton Mortgage Co., 50 F.3d 1298, 1302-03 (5th Cir.
1995) (per curiam) (citations omitted).
Rule 15(a) provides "a
strong presumption in favor of granting leave to amend." Financial
Acquisition Partners LP v. Blackwell, 440 F.3d 278, 291 (5th Cir.
2006).
Nevertheless, "[d]enial of leave to amend may be warranted
for undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the
movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, undue prejudice to
the
opposing
party,
or
futility
of
a
proposed
United States ex rel. Steury v. Cardinal Health,
amendment."
Inc., 625 F.3d
262, 270 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Foman v. Davis, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230
(1962)).
-2-
Case 4:16-cv-02133 Document 114 Filed on 05/19/20 in TXSD Page 3 of 15
"Rule 16(b) provides that once a scheduling order has been
entered,
it
'may be modified only for good cause and with the
judge's consent.'"
P. 16(b)(4)).
Marathon, 591 F.3d at 470 (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
"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
Enterprises, 1.1.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, NA, 315 F.3d
533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003)(quoting 6A Charles Alan Wright, et al.,
Federal
Practice
and Procedure
§ 1522.1 (2d ed. 1990)).
To
determine whether the moving party has established good cause,
courts consider four factors:
"(l) the explanation for the failure
to timely move for leave to amend;
(2) the importance of the
amendment; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the amendment; and
(4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice."
Marathon, 591 F.3d at 470 (quoting Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
v. City of El Paso, 346 F.3d 541,
546 (5th Cir. 2003)).
If a
movant establishes good cause to extend the scheduling order,
courts
analyze
the
motion
Enterprises, 315 F.3d at 535.
to
amend
under
Rule
15(a).
S&W
Because a scheduling order (i.e., a
Docket Control Order) was entered in this case on September 30,
2016 (Docket Entry No. 22), Rule 16(b)'s standard applies, and the
plaintiff must show good cause to amend.
entered on September 30,
2016,
The Docket Control Order
required motions to amend the
pleadings to be filed by November 21, 2016.2
2
Agreed amended scheduling orders have since been entered, but
(continued...)
-3-
Case 4:16-cv-02133 Document 114 Filed on 05/19/20 in TXSD Page 4 of 15
II. Plaintiff Fails to Show Good Cause to Amend
The pending motion to amend was filed on January 29, 2020.
Plaintiff seeks leave to allege 22 paragraphs of "new and material
facts"
obtained in discovery detailing the chain of training
failures that led to plaintiff's housing assignment in the Harris
County jail, 3 and a new claim (Count 13)
that "Harris County's
failure to properly train Detention Officer Ruth Arteaga caused the
Plaintiff to be misclassified as a
defendant or criminal,
'maximum custody' criminal
which subsequently led to a failure to
protect and a failure to properly treat." 4
Harris County argues that plaintiff cannot show good cause to
amend because she has no reasonable explanation for her delay in
seeking to amend, because the court has already dismissed her claim
that Harris County failed to train its employees concerning her
classification and confinement, and because an amendment at this
stage of the case would result in prejudice to defendants that
cannot be cured by continuance. 5
2( •••continued)
none have allowed amended pleadings. See Scheduling/Docket Control
Order (Docket Entry No. 64) entered on October 10, 2017; Agreed
Amended Docket Control Order (as revised by the Court) (Docket
Entry No. 75) entered on August 6, 2018; Order on Agreed Motion to
Extend Deadlines (Docket Entry No. 99) entered on September 17,
2019; and Order on Agreed Motion to Extend Deadlines (Docket Entry
No. 101) entered on November 18, 2019.
3
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, Docket Entry No. 102, pp. 1-6.
4
Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint, Docket Entry No. 102-1,
p. 83.
5
Harris County's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to
(continued ...)
-4-
Case 4:16-cv-02133 Document 114 Filed on 05/19/20 in TXSD Page 5 of 15
A.
Plaintiff Has a Reasonable Explanation for Delay
Asserting that "[o]n or about June 5th,
2019, Counsel for
Plaintiff received document production Bates labeled "HC-16829 18744, " 6 that "[s]ubsequently (on or about November 3rd, 2019), co
counsel for Plaintiff,
production
an
Maisie Barringer,
Internal
Affairs
discovered within that
Division
report
generated
by
Defendant Harris County," 7 and that "[d]ocument, Bates labeled page
HC-016996,
reveals
that
Harris
County
Detention
Officer
Ruth
Arteaga misclassified Plaintiff in the Harris County Jail as a
result of Harris County's failure to train Officer Arteaga, " 8
plaintiff argues that she requests leave to amend because "she was
incapable of discovering, interpreting, and moving forward with the
newly acquired evidence in a more expedient manner,
fault of her own." 9
through no
Plaintiff argues that
the above described discovery by Plaintiff's legal team
required [a] time-consuming effort to decode one of the
other documents included in Defendant Harris County's
latest production, Bates numbered page HC-017025 (a
screenshot of the Justice Information Management System
- LBKl screen pertaining to
(JIMS) Booking inquiry
Plaintiff).
Upon receiving that document, counsel for
5 ( ••• continued)
File Her Fourth Amended Complaint ("Harris County's Opposition"),
Docket Entry No. 104.
6
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, Docket Entry No. 102, p. 9 � II.
7
Id. � III.
9
Id. at 11.
-5-
Case 4:16-cv-02133 Document 114 Filed on 05/19/20 in TXSD Page 6 of 15
Plaintiff was required to access instructional materials
created by Harris County Technology Services to interpret
the coding system displayed on HC-017025.
Upon completing review of Harris County's 18,700plus pages of discovery production in November 2019,
Plaintiff's legal team began discussing the implications
of the aforementioned newly-discovered evidence and
whether amendments to the Complaint were warranted. At
that time, undersigned lead counsel for Plaintiff, Sean
Buckley, was in the midst of a 2-month-long federal jury
trial in the Northern District of Texas - and was unable
to turn his attention to analyzing the import of said
newly discovered evidence, and deciding whether a Fourth
Amended Complaint should be filed. Undersigned counsel
Buckley's federal trial concluded just before the
Christmas holiday on December 17, 2019.
In early
January, all counsel for Plaintiff resumed discussions
about the newly-discovered evidence and its implications,
and undersigned lead counsel Buckley decided that leave
to file a Fourth Amended Complaint should be requested.
Since early January, Plaintiff's counsel have been
working diligently to research and prepare this Motion
and Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint. 10
Asserting that "Plaintiff admits waiting six months from the
time she received this production until she moved to amend her
complaint," 11 and that the claim she seeks to add "is not a 'new'
claim - it is the same misclassification claim that the Court
dismissed on
September 29,
2017," 12
Harris County argues that
"Plaintiff cannot show good cause to amend because she has no
reasonable explanation for her delay in seeking to amend." 13
10
11
rd. at 10.
Harris County's Opposition, Docket Entry No. 104, p. 5.
-6-
Case 4:16-cv-02133 Document 114 Filed on 05/19/20 in TXSD Page 7 of 15
Based on the verification signed by plaintiff's attorney
(Docket Entry No. 103), the court concludes that despite acting
diligently to acquire her records from Harris County, plaintiff did
not acquire those records until June of 2019, and the facts that
plaintiff seeks leave to assert could not have been asserted by the
November 21, 2016, deadline for filing motions to amend established
by the court's September 30, 2016, scheduling order.
Harris County
has neither argued nor cited any evidence from which the court
could conclude that the plaintiff was aware of the facts on which
her proposed amendments are based before the deadline for amending
pleadings expired, or that had plaintiff acted diligently she could
have acquired those facts from another source in time to meet the
deadline for amending pleadings.
The court is therefore persuaded
that plaintiff has offered a reasonable explanation for delay in
seeking leave to amend, and that this factor weighs in favor of
granting her motion.
See Southwestern Bell,
34 6 F. 3d at 54 7
(denying leave to amend upon finding that "[movant) was aware of
the contract that forms the basis of its proposed amendment months
in advance of the deadline and does not offer a satisfactory
explanation for its delay in seeking leave to amend")
B.
The Proposed Amendments Are Not Important
Plaintiff argues that her
proposed amendments are of immense significance and [she)
will be unjustly prejudiced if she is not allowed to
plead the newly available facts.
First, the facts
-7-
Case 4:16-cv-02133 Document 114 Filed on 05/19/20 in TXSD Page 8 of 15
underlying the proposed amendments expose one of the
reasons Defendant Harris County, Texas failed to treat
and protect Plaintiff.
Further, Plaintiff's newly discovered facts support
a separate cause of action that Defendant Harris County
violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights by failing to
properly train its detention staff.
This failure to
train subsequently led to a failure to properly treat and
protect Plaintiff. As a result of Detention Officer Ruth
Arteaga's untrained inability to understand the coding
system utilized in the Justice Information Management
System, Officer Arteaga misclassified Plaintiff, which
resulted in Plaintiff being denied constitutionally
required treatment and protection in conformity with
Harris County's established policies and procedures. 14
Citing Maryland Manor Associates v. City of Houston,
F. Supp. 2d 394,
401
(S.D. Tex. 2011),
816
defendants argue that
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend should be denied because "the Court has
already dismissed her claim that Harris County failed to train its
employees
'concerning
Plaintiff.'" 15
the
classification
and
confinement
of
Harris County explains that
Plaintiff's proposed amendment is not important because
it simply repackages Count 8 of her Third Amended
Complaint,
which alleged that Harris County had
constitutionally inadequate "training concerning the
classification and confinement" of inmates who were being
held as witnesses or transferred into custody from
medical or mental health facilities. In Paragraphs 211219, Plaintiff suggested various reasons why Harris
County employees were inadequately trained to classify
her.
On September 29, 2017, this Court dismissed Count 8
and held:
14
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, Docket Entry No. 102, p. 11.
15
Harris County's Opposition, Docket Entry No. 104, p. 6.
-8-
Case 4:16-cv-02133 Document 114 Filed on 05/19/20 in TXSD Page 9 of 15
In Count 8 plaintiff alleges that Harris
County had a constitutionally inadequate
policy,
practice,
custom,
or
training
concerning the classification and confinement
of victim/witness detainees or detainees who
were transferred into its custody from
medical/mental health facilities.
Circuit
Fifth
The
the
that
has
held
classification of inmates is an administrative
function of the jail.
Jones v. Diamond, 62 6
F.2d 1364, 1376 (5th Cir. 1981) (en bane).
Inmates therefore have no protectable property
or
liberty
interest
in
custodial
classification,
and
plaintiff
has
no
constitutional right to a particular status or
classification within the jail.
Accordingly, plaintiff's claim concerning the
classification and confinement of victim/
witness detainees or detainees who were
transferred into its custody from medical/
mental health facilities asserted in Count 8
will be dismissed.16
In Maryland Manor a developer sued the City of Houston for
denying a permit.
The City filed two motions to dismiss.
As the
court was considering the City's motions, plaintiff filed a motion
to amend.
Judge Rosenthal held:
[T]he third amended complaint is almost identical to the
second amended complaint. The minor differences between
the third amended complaint and the second amended
complaint would not change the court's resolution of the
City's motions to dismiss. Maryland Manor's motion for
leave to amend is denied both because it is untimely and
because amendment would be futile.
Id. at 401.
Id. at 7 (quoting Memorandum Opinion and Order, Docket Entry
No. 62, pp. 69-71).
16
-9-
Case 4:16-cv-02133 Document 114 Filed on 05/19/20 in TXSD Page 10 of 15
Plaintiff argues that her "proposed amendments are of immense
significance and [she] will be unjustly prejudiced if she is not
allowed to plead the newly available facts." 17
But the new facts
that plaintiff seeks leave to add do not allege new conduct and the
new cause of action that plaintiff seeks leave to add does not
allege a new theory of recovery.
Instead, plaintiff's proposed
amendments simply seek to identify the individual Harris County
employee whose allegedly inadequate training caused her to be
"misclassified
criminal,
as
a
'maximum
custody'
criminal
defendant
or
which subsequently led to a failure to protect and
failure to treat." 18
The claim that plaintiff seeks to add, i.e.,
Count 13 for "Harris County's failure to properly train Detention
Officer Ruth Arteaga" is not materially different from the claim
alleged in Count 8 of Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint that
Harris County had a constitutionally inadequate policy,
procedure, practice, custom, or training concerning the
classification and confinement of those unfortunate
People[] who are either (1) victim/witness detainees or
(2) transferred into its custody from medical/mental
health facilities. 19
Because the only new cause of action that plaintiff seeks
leave to assert in her proposed Fourth Amended Complaint is not
17
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, Docket Entry No. 102, p. 11.
18
Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint, Docket Entry No. 102-1,
p. 83.
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint,
p. 63 (emphasis added).
19
-10-
Docket Entry No. 35,
Case 4:16-cv-02133 Document 114 Filed on 05/19/20 in TXSD Page 11 of 15
materially different from the cause of action for misclassification
alleged in her Third Amended Complaint for which the court granted
Harris County's motion to dismiss and, instead, merely provides
additional facts that can be
used to
support
claims already
alleged, the court concludes that plaintiff has failed to show that
the proposed amendments are important, or that their addition would
not be futile.
The importance factor, therefore, weighs against
granting Plaintiff's Motion to Amend.
C.
The Potential Prejudice to the Defendants Cannot Be Cured By
a Continuance
Plaintiff argues that defendants will not be substantially
prejudiced if her motion to amend is granted because
Defendant Harris County produced the aforementioned new
evidence on or about June 5th, 2019.
Defendant Harris
County knew it would take substantial time for
Plaintiff's counsel to review and digest that production,
and naturally, Harris County must have known the
significance of what was contained within the production
because it came from them - and much of it flowed from an
Internal Affairs investigation.
This is certainly not
the kind of situation where Defendant Harris County would
be surprised by the substance of the newly discovered
information and therefore prejudiced in its ability to
defend itself.
If Plaintiff is allowed to amend at this time,
Defendant Harris County will likely file another
dispositive 12(b) (6) Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff
recognizes that this will draw on resources of the
parties in addition to scarce judicial resources. This
issue and its attendant prejudices are minimized,
however, because the amendments sought will narrowly
(1) further elucidate two counts of Plaintiff's live
Complaint that have already survived Rule 12(b) (6)
-11-
Case 4:16-cv-02133 Document 114 Filed on 05/19/20 in TXSD Page 12 of 15
scrutiny, and (2) allege a singular additional cause of
action (Failure to Train) . 20
Harris County responds that granting Plaintiff's Motion to
Amend at this stage of the case would result in prejudice to the
defendants that cannot be cured by continuance. 21
Plaintiff acknowledges that if she is allowed to file a Fourth
Amended Complaint,
Harris County will likely file another Rule
12(b) (6) motion to dismiss that would not only demand additional
resources from the parties,
but from the court.
Nevertheless,
plaintiff argues that in the event the court finds any party is
unfairly prejudiced by her request to amend,
"a continuance is
available to remedy same and Plaintiff would not object to it." 22
Plaintiff's argument all but concedes that granting her motion to
amend will prejudice defendants and needlessly consume scarce
judicial resources by requiring not just new pleadings, but also a
whole new round of motions to dismiss.
This action has been pending for almost four years.
deadline for filing amended pleadings was November 21,
The
2016. 23
20
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, Docket Entry No. 102, pp. 11-12.
21
Harris County's Opposition, Docket Entry No. 104, p. 8.
22
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, Docket Entry No. 102, p. 12.e.
Agreed amended scheduling orders have since been entered, but
none have allowed amended pleadings. See Scheduling/Docket Control
Order (Docket Entry No. 64) entered on October 10, 2017; Agreed
Amended Docket Control Order (as revised by the Court) (Docket
Entry No. 75) entered on August 6, 2018; Order on Agreed Motion to
(continued... )
23
-12-
Case 4:16-cv-02133 Document 114 Filed on 05/19/20 in TXSD Page 13 of 15
Plaintiff has filed an original and three amended complaints, and
defendants have filed two motions to dismiss,
resolved almost three years ago.
which the court
Moreover, pursuant to the most
recent Order on Agreed Motion to Extend Deadlines (Docket Entry
No. 101), entered on November 18, 2019, the discovery period ended
on March 26,
2020,
the period for filing dispositive motions
expired on April 26, 2020, the period for filing non-dispositive
motions expired on May 1, 2020, the Joint Pre-Trial Order is due on
September 4, 2020, and Docket Call is set for September 11, 2020.
Despite plaintiff's reasonable explanation for the cause of her
delay in asserting the proposed new facts and cause of action that
she seeks to add to her complaint, the court is not persuaded that
the time for filing pleadings and motions to dismiss should be
reopened
to
accommodate
her
request.
Allowing
the
proposed
amendment would not only require the court to abandon established
deadlines - to which the plaintiff agreed - for filing dispositive
motions, for completing discovery, for filing the Joint Pretrial
Order, and for conducting docket call - which the court will not
extend given the age of this case, but would also delay the trial
and thereby
prejudice the
defendants
and
the
court.
Since,
moreover, the cause of action that plaintiff seeks leave to add,
Count 13
i.e.,
for Harris County's failure to properly train
( ••• continued)
Extend Deadlines (Docket Entry No. 99) entered on September 17,
2019; and Order on Agreed Motion to Extend Deadlines (Docket Entry
No. 101) entered on November 18, 2019.
23
-13-
Case 4:16-cv-02133 Document 114 Filed on 05/19/20 in TXSD Page 14 of 15
Detention Officer Ruth Arteaga is not materially different from the
claim alleged in Count 8 of Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint,
which the court has already dismissed for failure to state a claim,
the proposed amendment would likely be futile.
concludes
allowing
that
the
the
potential
amendment
prejudice
cannot
be
to
cured
The court thus
the
by
defendants
a
in
continuance.
Accordingly, the third and fourth factors regarding prejudice weigh
against granting Plaintiff's Motion to Amend.
D.
Conclusions
Although the court is persuaded that plaintiff has presented
a reasonable explanation for delay in seeking leave to file a
Fourth Amended Complaint to add newly discovered facts and a new
cause of action for failure to train,
the court concludes that
plaintiff has failed to establish good cause as required by Rule
16(b) (4) to amend her pleadings after the deadline for doing so
established by the court's scheduling order has expired because she
has failed to establish that the proposed amendments are important,
that the defendants will not be prejudiced,
would cure the prejudice to defendants,
amendments would not be futile.
that a continuance
or that the proposed
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) (4) ("A
schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's
consent.").
-14-
Case 4:16-cv-02133 Document 114 Filed on 05/19/20 in TXSD Page 15 of 15
III.
Conclusions and Order
For the reasons stated in § II, above,
Plaintiff's Opposed
Motion for Leave to File Her Fourth Amended Complaint (Docket Entry
No. 102) is DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 19th day of
LAKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-15-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?