Hardy v. Tekalu et al
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 6/17/2015. (jsmi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
KEYON SANTE HARDY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:14CV297
DR. TEKLU,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Keyon Sante Hardy,
a former Virginia inmate filed this 42
198 3 action. 1
At the time he initiated this action,
U.S. C.
§
Hardy was proceeding pro
action. 2
Thereafter,
se.
Dr.
Teklu moved to dismiss
Hardy retained counsel who filed a Motion
to Amend and a Proposed Amended Complaint.
For the reasons that follow,
1
the
(ECF No.
the Motion to Amend
36,
37-1.)
(ECF No.
36)
The statute provides, in pertinent part:
Every person who, under color of any statute
. . . of any State
. subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
person
within
the
jurisdiction
thereof
to
the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law . . . .
42
u.s.c.
2
§
1983.
On December 30, 2014, Hardy moved for leave to amend to
correct the spelling of Defendant's name.
Hardy's Motion to
Amend (ECF No. 26) will be granted and the Clerk is directed to
correct the spelling of Dr. Teklu's name on the docket.
will be granted and the Motion to Dismiss
(ECF No.
18)
will be
Hardy's
Amended
denied.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I.
On
September
Complaint.
day,
19,
2014,
the
Court
filed
By Memorandum Order entered that same
(ECF No. 14.)
the Court dismissed Hardy's claims against all defendants
except
Dr.
Teklu.
On
October
2,
2014,
Dr.
Teklu
filed
his
Motion to Dismiss.
A.
Hardy's Pro Se Submissions
On December 30,
to
include
2014,
his - medical
Hardy moved to supplement the record
record
and
moved
for
an
evidentiary
hearing.
B.
On
Hardy's Represented Submission
March
25,
2015,
counsel
moved to amend the complaint,
appeared
on
and submitted a
Hardy's
behalf,
proposed amended
complaint.
II.
Federal
Rule
of
ANALYSIS
Civil
Procedure
15 (a)
provides,
pertinent part:
(a) Amendments Before Trial.
Amending as a Matter 0£ Course. A party may
amend its pleading once as a matter of course
within:
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive
pleading is required, 21 days after service
(1)
2
in
of a responsive pleading or 21 days after
service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or
(f), whichever is earlier.
Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party
may amend its pleading only with the opposing
party's written consent or the court's leave.
The court should freely give
leave when
justice so requires.
(2)
Fed. R. Civ.
P.
Complaint,
lS(a).
his
As Hardy already has filed one Amended
motion
is
governed
by
Rule
lS(a) (2),
requires that leave to amend should be freely given.
standard,
which
Under this
"leave to amend a pleading should be denied only when
the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there
has
been bad
faith
on
the
part
of
amendment would have been futile."
404,
426-27
quotation
suggests
marks
any
Accordingly,
granted.
(4th
Cir.
2006)
omitted) .
of
the
Hardy's
Laber v.
(citations
Neither
above
Motion
the moving party,
Dr.
Amend
438
Teklu
nor
F.3d
the
record
present
are
(ECF
the
(internal
omitted)
circumstances
to
Harvey,
or
here. 3
No.
36)
will
be
The Amended Complaint (ECF No. 37-1) will supplant the
prior complaints.
Dr.
Teklu's
Motion
to
Dismiss
(ECF
No.
complaint will be denied without prejudice.
need
currently
exists
the
Motion
an Evidentiary Hearing
3
with
an
supplement
for
record
for
18)
the
prior
Furthermore,
as no
evidentiary
Hardy's
medical
(ECF No.
hearing
records,
28)
to
Hardy's
and Motion to
Dr. Teklu does not oppose the Motion to Amend.
3
or
Supplement
the
Record
i
(ECF
No.
27)
will
be
denied
without
I
I
prejudice.
I
I
I
The Clerk is
1
i
send a
directed to
copy of the Memorandum
i
Opinion to counsel! of record.
I
/s/
ft:lf
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia
Date:
~ t '7< 12.t>t f
I
4
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?