Perez v. Morgan et al

Filing 57

ORDER Granting 49 Motion to Amend to Substitute "Doe" Defendants, signed by Magistrate Judge Theresa L Fricke.**3 PAGES, PRINT ALL**(Daniel Perez, Prisoner ID: 888274)(GMR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 DANIEL JAY PEREZ, Case No. C16-6023 RBL-TLF 10 Plaintiff, 12 DICK MORGAN, et al., Defendants. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND TO SUBSTITUTE “DOE” DEFENDANTS v. 11 Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) to substitute the names of eight Department of Corrections’ employees for the fictitiously described “Doe” Defendants. The new defendants are: Sonia Segraves, Teddie R. Armstrong, Cindy Davenport, Juan L. Hernandez-Mendoza, Trevor A. Ahlers, Clavin Blackham, Richard Christensen, and Anthony W. Boe. Plaintiff also seeks leave to amend his complaint to substitute the full names of six employees who were previously only partially named: John C. Doyle, Mark McClanahan, Thomas Vicari II, Mark King, Steve Sundburg, and Peter Beck. Dkt. 49. Defendants do not object to the proposed amendment, but “object to the amendment to the extent that it would interfere with the case schedule currently in place.” Dkt. 52, p. 2. The 24 25 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND TO SUBSTITUTE “DOE” DEFENDANTS - 1 1 discovery deadline is June 23, 2015 and the dispositive motions deadline is August 25, 2017. 2 Dkt. 31. On June 7, 2017, while the motion to amend was pending, plaintiff filed a motion to 3 extend the discovery deadline, which is ripe for consideration on June 23, 2017. 4 DISCUSSION 5 A party seeking to amend his complaint may seek leave of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 15(a). Federal Rule 15(a) indicates that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so 7 requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Although this is a liberal standard, leave to amend is 8 discretionary and courts have identified a number of factors to consider when determining 9 whether leave is appropriate. See, e.g., Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). These factors 10 11 include undue prejudice, futility, and undue delay. Id. Mr. Perez has timely sought leave to amend his complaint to substitute the proper parties 12 to his complaint and to fully identify other parties. Thus, leave to amend shall be granted. 13 Although defendants’ concerns about the amount of discovery already produced and ongoing 14 discovery requests, the Court declines to issue a blanket denial of further discovery. The parties 15 may address the appropriateness of extending the discovery deadline with regard to plaintiff’s 16 pending motion (Dkt. 53). 17 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 18 1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Dkt. 49) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is 19 directed to docket the proposed amended complaint (Dkt. 49-1) as Plaintiff’s first amended 20 complaint. Under separate Order, the Court shall direct service on the newly named defendants. 21 Service on the partially named defendants is not necessary as they have already appeared and 22 filed an answer. Dkt. 30. 23 24 25 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND TO SUBSTITUTE “DOE” DEFENDANTS - 2 1 2. The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to plaintiff and counsel for defendants. 2 Dated this 9th day of June, 2017. 3 4 5 A 6 Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND TO SUBSTITUTE “DOE” DEFENDANTS - 3

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?