Ali v. Raleigh County, et al

Filing 228

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Denying the 40 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; denying the 213 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint to Reassert Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant Raleigh County; ; granting 225 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Out of Time. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 9/14/2018. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
MARQUEL ALI,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-03386

RALEIGH COUNTY, et al.
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint (Document 40), the Defendants, Raleigh County, Raleigh County Sheriff’s Department,
Gary Epling, Jason Redden, and Steven Tanner’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint (Document 44), the Defendants Kenneth L. Pack and the West
Virginia State Police’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (Document 46),
the Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants Raleigh County, Raleigh County Sheriff’s Department, Gary
Epling, Jason Redden and Steven Tanner’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint (Document 49), and the Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants West Virginia State
Police’s and Kenneth L. Pack’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint (Document 50).
The Court has also reviewed the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint
to Reassert Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant Raleigh County (Document 213), the
Defendant Raleigh County’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion (Document 221), and all attached
1

exhibits. Having reviewed the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Reply Out of Time (Document
225), the Court finds the same should be granted, and has therefore reviewed the Plaintiff’s Reply
to Defendant Raleigh County’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint to Reassert Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant Raleigh County (Document 226).
FACTS
The Court has set forth, in great detail, the facts of this action in multiple opinions and
incorporates those facts herein. For the purpose of addressing these motions, however, the Court
offers the following brief summary of the facts. The Plaintiff, Mr. Ali, initiated this action with
a complaint on June 23, 2017, alleging several violations of his constitutional and civil rights
against multiple personal, municipal, and state Defendants. On July 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a
motion to amend his complaint, and on August 14, 2017, the Court granted that motion and the
Amended Complaint (Document 23) was filed. During the pendency of several different motions
to dismiss filed separately by the Defendants, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his
complaint for a second time. The Court issued rulings on four of those motions to dismiss
(Documents 73, 74, 75, and 76) on March 29, 2018. While the remaining motion to dismiss and
the Plaintiff’s second motion for leave to amend were being considered by the Court, the Plaintiff
filed his third motion for leave to amend. Trial is scheduled to begin January 28, 2019. The
discovery deadline was August 31, 2018.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure encourages Courts to freely grant
motions for leave to amend pleadings “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “A
2

district court may deny a motion to amend when the amendment would be prejudicial to the
opposing party, the moving party has acted in bad faith, or the amendment would be futile.”
Equal Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Associates, 602 F.3d 597, 603 (4th Cir. 2010). Rule 16(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “a schedule may be modified only for good
cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Thus, “after the deadlines
provided by a scheduling order have passed, the good cause standard must be satisfied to justify
leave to amend the pleadings.” Nourison Rug Corp. v. Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295, 298 (4th Cir.
2008).
DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff’s Motion to File Second Amended Complaint
The Plaintiff filed his motion for second amended complaint on October 3, 2017, one day
after the October 2, 2017 deadline for amendments and joinder in the Scheduling Order (Document
32). Because this motion was past the deadline, Rule 16(b) applies, and the Plaintiff must satisfy
the good cause standard. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to do so. While the
Plaintiff is correct that the tardiness of his filing amounted to a mere twelve-minute delay, and that
it was not particularly untimely, he provides no basis for a finding of good cause to amend his
complaint other than reasonable anticipation that he would get the motion filed before the deadline
was passed. As the Plaintiff stated in his reply briefs, the good cause standard also focuses on
the moving party’s reasons for seeking amendment. The Plaintiff’s motion is completely void of
any reason for seeking to amend, however, and merely states that the Court should allow him to
amend his complaint because, until he filed it past the deadline, it was timely and resulted in no
prejudice to the Defendants.
3

The Court finds this “argument” fails to satisfy good cause.

The proposed second

amended complaint (Document 40-1) adds factual allegations and changes the order in which some
of the claims are presented but does not add any new claims. Moreover, it was filed during the
Court’s consideration of five motions to dismiss which had been or were nearly fully briefed by
all parties, including the Plaintiff who had previously been given the opportunity to amend his
complaint. Because the Court’s orders on the motions to dismiss were based almost entirely on
legal issues, such as immunity and statutes of limitations, the few factual allegations added to the
complaint and the reordering of claims would not change the outcomes of the motions to dismiss.
Given the failure to offer good cause, even in his reply brief, the Plaintiff’s motion to file a second
amended complaint should be denied.
B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Reassert Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
The Plaintiff’s most recent motion seeks leave to amend his complaint to reassert claims
against Raleigh County pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asserts that deposition testimony of a
witness previously employed by the prosecuting attorney’s office in Raleigh County is evidence
that the office maintained a practice of withholding exculpatory and impeachment evidence from
criminal defendants during the plea negotiation stage of their prosecution in violation of Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts that the witness testified to a
practice in the prosecutor’s office of delaying disclosure of evidence related to the identity and
statements of confidential informants even after the filing of a discovery motion. Under the
alleged practice this information is not disclosed until trial is imminent. The Plaintiff argues that
because the majority of criminal cases in Raleigh County are resolved by guilty plea, and because
witness testimony indicates that exculpatory information is regularly not disclosed during the plea
4

negotiation stage, the deposition testimony is evidence of Raleigh County’s custom and practice
of violating defendants’ constitutional rights. Thus, the Plaintiff argues that he has sufficient
evidence to amend his complaint to reassert Section 1983 claims, and that this amendment would
not be futile.
Raleigh County counters that the amendment would be futile. It contends that the Plaintiff
has failed to “point to any testimony indicating that the Raleigh County Prosecutor’s office had a
policy or custom of delaying production of Brady material during plea negotiations.” (Def.’s
Resp., at ¶ 48.) Raleigh County further argues that, even if the Plaintiff had established evidence
of such a claim through evidentiary testimony, the Plaintiff did not enter into a plea agreement or
plead guilty during his criminal proceedings, and therefore cannot present a claim that he was
injured during the plea negotiation stage.
Regardless of the merits of the Defendant’s alleged conduct,1 the Plaintiff in this case has
failed to allege any causal link between Raleigh County’s withholding of exculpatory evidence
during plea negotiations and a violation of his constitutional rights. The Plaintiff admits that he
did not plead guilty, that he was eventually provided the exculpatory evidence at issue before his
trial, and that he was ultimately acquitted of the crimes for which he was charged. “[A] plaintiff
seeking to impose liability on a municipality under [Section] 1983 [is required] to identify a

1 The Fourth Circuit has held that the due process protection in Brady requiring the disclosure of exculpatory evidence
is a “trial right. It requires a prosecutor to disclose evidence favorable to the defense if the evidence is material to
either guilt or punishment and exits to preserve the fairness of a trial verdict.” United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d
263, 285 (4th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original). While understanding and accepting that precedent, this Court is
inclined to agree with the reasoning espoused by the West Virginia Supreme Court, as well as several other federal
circuits, that the “fundamental principles” of protecting a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights “compel the
conclusion that a defendant’s constitutional due process rights, as enumerated in Brady . . . extend to the plea
negotiation stage of the criminal proceeding . . . .” Buffey v. Ballard, 782 S.E.2d 204, 212-18 (W.Va. 2015). See
also, United States v. Ohiri, 133 Fed.Appx. 555, 562 (10th Cir. 2005); Sanchez v. United States, 50 F.3d 1448, 1453
(9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Persico, 164 F.3d 796, 804-05 (2d Cir. 1999); White v. United States, 858 F.2d 416,
422 (8th Cir. 1988); Campbell v. Marshall, 769 F.2d 314, 321 (6th Cir. 1985).

5

municipal ‘policy’ or ‘custom’ that caused the plaintiff’s injury.” Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of Bryan
Cty., Okl. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997) (quoting Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social
Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978)). “The plaintiff must also demonstrate . . . a direct causal link
between the municipal action and the deprivation of federal rights.” Brown, 520 U.S. at 404
(emphasis added). Mr. Ali’s motion is devoid of any causal link between the alleged withholding
of exculpatory evidence during plea negotiations and the deprivation of his rights, or any injury
during plea negotiations inasmuch as he did not plead guilty and was eventually acquitted.
If the evidence provided by the Plaintiff is accurate, and the Raleigh County Prosecuting
Attorney’s office maintains a practice of withholding exculpatory evidence from defendants at the
prosecution’s discretion, the Court would be remiss if it failed to condemn such conduct. If the
prosecution has in its possession exculpatory evidence during plea negotiations and fails to
disclose it, the defendant cannot knowingly and voluntarily enter into a plea agreement. This
conduct is completely inappropriate. Exculpatory evidence will most certainly affect how the
defendant’s counsel makes decisions and effectively advises her client, especially at a time when
the vast majority of criminal proceedings are resolved through guilty pleas. Defendants and their
attorneys evaluate the decision of whether to plead, not based solely on the defendants’ assessment
of his own guilt, but on the risks posed by proceeding to trial—risks that can be evaluated only
through review of the Government’s evidence, including that which is exculpatory. Again,
however, in this instance the Plaintiff has failed to allege any causal link between that alleged
practice and any injury. Amending his complaint would therefore be futile.

6

CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, after thorough review and careful consideration, the Court ORDERS that
the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Document 40) and the Motion for Leave
to File Amended Complaint to Reassert Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant Raleigh County
(Document 213) be DENIED. The Court further ORDERS that the Motion for Leave to File
Reply Out of Time (Document 225) be GRANTED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to
any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

7

September 14, 2018