Hamilton v. John Doe No 1 et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting 17 Motion to Amend. Counsel is directed to e-file their Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. CITY OF OLYMPIA, et al., Defendants. This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Dkt. 17. The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, and the remainder of the file herein. I. FACTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA WILLIAM W. HAMILTON, Case No. C08-5315RJB Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

On May 14, 2008, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this matter, alleging that while participating in a November 10, 2007, political demonstration, Defendant John Doe police officer sprayed him with pepper spray. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff alleges that he participated in a political demonstration the next day, and at that demonstration, Defendant John Doe police officers clubbed him with batons, and then shot him with pepper bullets. Id. Plaintiff claims his constitutional rights were violated, that the Defendants were negligent and committed battery. Id. Plaintiff now moves to amend his Complaint to name the individual officers he alleges were involved in this incident. Dkt. 17. Plaintiff states that the parties have engaged in discovery, and he has identified the parties he believes engaged in the conduct of which he complains. Id. Plaintiff has filed a proposed Amended Complaint. Dkt. 17-5. Defendants have not filed a response.

ORDER Page - 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 · · Therefore, it is hereby, ORDERED that:

II.

DISCUSSION

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) provides that "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." "Five factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. Futility alone can justify the denial of a motion to amend." Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004)(internal quotations and citations omitted). Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint (Dkt. 17) should be granted. Plaintiff has not acted in bad faith or with undue delay. There is no showing that the City of Olympia and the named Defendants will suffer prejudice from the amendment. The City has been aware of this matter for months and aware that some of its police officers were likely going to be named as parties. Dkt. 15. Similarly, there is no showing that Plaintiff's amendment is futile. Plaintiff has not previously amended the Complaint. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Dkt. 17) should be granted. III. ORDER

The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Dkt. 17) is GRANTED; The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address. DATED this 17th day of March, 2009.

A
ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge

ORDER Page - 2