Smart v. United States of America et al

Filing 45

ORDER GRANTING 41 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Robert F. Castaneda. (mc4)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO DIVISION
MICHAEL C. SMART,
Plaintiff,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

EP-23-CV-00319-KC-RFC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Michael Smart’s “Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint” (“Motion”) (ECF No. 41), filed on April 30, 2024. This case was assigned to United
States District Judge Kathleen Cardone and referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant
to the Standing Order Regarding Civil Case Assignments, dated May 1, 2012. For the following
reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.
I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff states that he has been receiving mental health treatment for post-traumatic stress
disorder for about nine years. Am. Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 17. Plaintiff received treatment, including
prescriptions for medication, from a nurse practitioner named Rey Leal. Id. at ¶ 2. This treatment
was paid for by the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). Id. at ¶ 17.
In September 2022, Leal informed Plaintiff that he would no longer be able to treat
Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 20. Leal explained that this was because he had not been receiving payment
from the VA for Plaintiff’s treatment for the past eight years. Id. Plaintiff subsequently filed this
lawsuit against Defendant United States of America.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file his second amended complaint on April
30, 2024. See Mot., ECF No. 41. Plaintiff’s previous complaint alleged a claim of action against
Defendant for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) under the Federal Tort Claims
Act (“FTCA”). Am. Compl. ¶¶ 21–26. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint solely alleges a
cause of action for medical negligence, again under the FTCA. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 17–23 [hereinafter
Second Am. Compl.], ECF No. 41-2. Defendant has not responded to the instant motion.
II.

DISCUSSION

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to amend a pleading once as a matter
of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Otherwise, the party can amend “only with the opposing
party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Id. 15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave
when justice so requires.” Id. Decisions about motions for leave to amend are left to the discretion
of the district court, but there is a bias in favor of granting leave to amend. Smith v. EMC Corp.,
393 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2004). A court should consider five factors when determining whether
to grant leave to amend: “1) undue delay, 2) bad faith or dilatory motive, 3) repeated failure to
cure deficiencies by previous amendments, 4) undue prejudice to the opposing party, and 5) futility
of the amendment.” Id. Absent one of these factors, leave to amend should be granted. Id.
In this case, there has been no undue delay, as the case is still in its initial stages. There is
no evidence of bad faith or dilatory motive on Plaintiff’s behalf. There has been no repeated failure
to cure deficiencies by previous amendments. Plaintiff’s original complaint asserted a claim for
IIED based upon Defendant allegedly deleting emails that Plaintiff had sent to various VA
employees. Compl. ¶¶ 23–24, ECF No. 3-1. Plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint before
it was served on Defendant and alleged that the extreme and outrageous conduct at issue was the
VA’s failure to pay for his medical treatment. Am. Compl. ¶ 24. Now, Plaintiff instead seeks to

2

drop the IIED claim and assert a claim for medical negligence instead. See Second Am. Compl.
¶¶ 17–23. Moreover, there is no undue prejudice to the opposing party. Defendant has not even
answered the amended complaint yet and no discovery has been conducted—in fact, there is
currently a stay in operation, see Order, ECF No. 32. And with respect to the last factor, futility,
Defendant has provided no argument that Plaintiff’s new claim for medical negligence would be
futile.
Since none of the five factors are present here, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for
leave to amend his complaint.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Michael Smart’s Motion for Leave
to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 41).
The Court FURTHER ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to docket Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 41-2).
SIGNED this 4th day of June, 2024.

ROBERT F. CASTAÑEDA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3