R.M. v. State of Washington et al

Filing 90

ORDER Granting 73 Motion to Amend and Directing Supplemental Briefing, signed by Magistrate Judge Theresa L Fricke. Counsel is directed to e-file their Amended Complaint by 2/22/2019. Defendants' amended answer is due by 3/8/2019. Supplem ental briefing: Defendants' brief is due by 3/22/2019; Plaintiff's Responsive Brief is due by 4/5/2019; and Defendants' Reply Brief is due by 4/12/2019. Defendants' 47 MOTION for Summary Judgment is re-noted for consideration to 4/12/2019. (GMR)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5
6

R.M.,
Case No. C18-5387-RBL-TLF

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et. al.,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
AMEND AND DIRECTING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Defendants.
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Dkt.
73. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 47) is also pending at this time.
Plaintiff’s motion indicates that “since the filing of the lawsuit and [defendants’s] motion

14

for summary judgment, the issues have become more defined” and that the proposed amended

15

complaint “clarifies the factual and legal basis” for the action. Dkt. 73, at 1-3. Defendants argue

16

that the proposed amendments are futile because “they do not save the plaintiff’s 8th Amendment

17

claims from summary judgment dismissal on qualified immunity or other grounds.” Dkt. 76.

18

Defendants also argue that the time of plaintiff’s motion is unduly prejudicial in light of their

19

pending motion for summary judgment and that “no good reason is given” for the timing. Id.

20

Leave to amend a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) “shall be freely given when

21

justice so requires.” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Services, LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 892 (9th Cir. 2010)

22

(citing Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). This policy is “to be applied with extreme

23

liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003)

24
25
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND AND
DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING - 1

1

(citations omitted). In determining whether to grant leave under Rule 15, courts consider five

2

factors: “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and

3

whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” United States v. Corinthian

4

Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis added).

5

Among these factors, prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest weight.

6

Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. A proposed amendment is futile “if no set of facts can be

7

proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim

8

or defense.” Gaskill v. Travelers Ins. Co., No. 11-cv-05847-RJB, 2012 WL 1605221, at *2

9

(W.D. Wash. May 8, 2012) (citing Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1393 (9th

10
11

Cir.1997)).
For the most part plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint asserts factual

12

allegations providing more specificity to his existing claims. The proposed second amended

13

complaint also asserts some additional allegations including that, “on November 8, 2017, the

14

CRC rejected all four possible treatments [proposed by the urology expert Dr. Russell] including

15

injecting Varapamil or Xiaflex, topical application of Varapamil, or a penile implant as not

16

medically necessary” and that plaintiff then exhausted his grievance with respect to this denial.

17

Dkt. 73, at 14, p. 4.22-4.23.

18

The Court cannot conclude that no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the

19

pleadings that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim such that the amendment would be

20

futile. Furthermore, defendants’ motion for summary judgment was filed relatively early in the

21

discovery process and thus the Court does not find that plaintiff has delayed in seeking to file his

22

second amended complaint. Defendants have not shown they are likely to be significantly

23

prejudiced by plaintiff’s amendment. The amendment does not seek to add additional defendants

24
25
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND AND
DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING - 2

1

and the Court finds that the pending summary judgment motion may still be considered. The

2

Court will allow the parties the opportunity to submit supplemental briefing in light of the

3

second amended complaint.
In light of the liberal standard for amendments, and in the interests of ensuring that all

4
5

relevant issues are properly before the Court, plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended

6

complaint is GRANTED. The Court declines to impose additional attorney’s fees or costs. The

7

Court further directs the following:

8

•

9
10

amended complaint on all parties.
•

11
12

On or before February 22, 2019, plaintiff is directed to file and serve his second

On or before March 8, 2019, defendants shall file amended answers, or other responsive
pleadings, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3).

•

On or before March 22, 2019, defendants shall file supplemental brief(s) addressing any

13

additional issues raised by plaintiff’s second amended complaint relevant to their pending

14

summary judgment motion.

15

•

On or before April 5, 2019, plaintiffs shall file a supplemental response brief.

16

•

On or before April 12, 2019, defendants shall file supplemental reply brief(s).

17

•

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is re-noted for consideration to April 12,

18

2019.

19

Dated this 13th day of February, 2019.

20
21
22

A

23

Theresa L. Fricke
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND AND
DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING - 3