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)

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