Williams v. State of Md. et al, No. 8:2009cv00879 - Document 62 (D. Md. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 8/17/10. (sat, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : ROBERT WILLIAMS : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 09-0879 : STATE OF MARYLAND, et al. : MEMORANDUM OPINION Presently pending and ready for resolution in this civil rights case are: (1) Defendants motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment (Paper 32); and (2) Plaintiff s first amended complaint, which will be treated as a motion to amend (Paper 58). Upon review of the papers filed, the court finds that a hearing in this matter is unnecessary. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend his complaint, while Defendants motion will be denied as moot.1 I. Background A. Factual Background Plaintiff North Branch 1 Robert Williams Correctional is an Institute inmate ( NBCI ) confined in at the Cumberland, In the course of seeking appointed counsel, Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Supplement Exhibit. (Paper 45). As Plaintiff has now been appointed counsel, that pending motion will be denied as moot. Maryland. In his original complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Jason excessive Frantz, force on a corrections [Plaintiff] officer on at December NBCI, 3, used 2008 by repeatedly banging Plaintiff s face against a door. (Paper 1, at injury 1). This beating, said Plaintiff, caused Plaintiff s eye that required six stitches. an (Id.) to Plaintiff also contended that several other corrections officers became involved in the altercation; these officers purportedly jumped on top of Plaintiff, causing knee and shoulder injuries. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff further alleged that he received inadequate medical care for these injuries. (Id. at 3). He sought $100,000 in compensatory damages, $100,000 in punitive damages, transfer to another prison, and lie detector tests for all the parties. (Id. at 4). B. Procedural Background Plaintiff filed his initial complaint pro se on March 2, 2009, asserting claims against the State of Maryland, the Warden of NBCI (John Rowley), and the six correctional officers allegedly involved in the December 2008 incident. (Paper 1). He complaint. later (Paper filed 15). complaint or, a sworn Defendants in the September 9, 2009. appoint affidavit counsel, subsequently alternative, (Paper 32). there verifying was moved for that to summary dismiss the judgment on After the court decided to additional 2 delay before current counsel entered the case. Counsel then filed a response to Defendant s motion on July 30, 2010. (Paper 57). Plaintiff also filed a first amended complaint on the same day, which asserts claims against the Warden of NBCI (John Rowley), eight correctional officers at NBCI, and Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services John Maynard. 58). (Paper The complaint includes three counts, each brought under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983: (1) Use of Excessive Force in Violation of the Eight Amendment, (2) Violation of Plaintiff s Eighth Amendment right to Medical Care, and (3) Violation of Substantive Due Process Rights. II. (Id. at 6-8). Analysis As noted complaint. above, Plaintiff recently filed an amended The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend his complaint as a matter of course within 21 days of serving it or within 21 days of a responsive pleading or Rule 12(b) motion. Fed.R. Civ.P. 15(a)(1). Once the right to amend as a matter of course expires, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party s written consent or the court s leave. to obtain: requires. Fourth Fed.R. Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Leave is not difficult the court will freely give it when justice so Id. Circuit The United States Court of Appeals for the has also stressed that leave to amend a complaint should be denied only when the amendment would be 3 prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would be futile. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 242 (4th Cir. 1999)(citing Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986)). Obviously, Plaintiff has filed his amended complaint long after Defendants filed their Rule 12(b) motion. (Paper 32). Although the 21 day deadlines have come and gone, Plaintiff did not formally seek leave from the court. Defendants consent before filing the mandated by Local Rule 103.6(d). Nor did Plaintiff seek new complaint, a step Nevertheless, the court will treat the first amended complaint as a motion to amend and will grant the motion. Such an outcome is appropriate in light of the forgiving standards embodied in Rule 15 and Plaintiff s pro se status throughout much of this case. The delay, although not insignificant, does not justify a denial of leave to amend here. See Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 427 (4th Cir. 2006) ( Delay alone . . . is an insufficient reason to deny Plaintiff s motion to amend. ). suggestion of There is neither bad faith. For apparent prejudice the part, most the nor any amended complaint appears merely to repackage the allegations contained in Plaintiff s initial pro se complaint into a more ordered, digestible format. The court also understands that Defendants 4 do not oppose the motion to amend. For all these reasons, leave to amend is appropriately granted here. Defendants motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment Because the applies court has to the granted prior, Plaintiff superseded leave to complaint. amend complaint, the court will deny Defendants motion as moot. Defendants may now file a Rule 12 motion or an answer his The in response to the amended complaint. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend his complaint. Defendant s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment will be denied as moot. separate order will follow. /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 5 A
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
