Roden v. Floyd et al, No. 2:2016cv11208 - Document 65 (E.D. Mich. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 59 Motion to Amend/Correct AND DIRECTING SERVICE BY THE US MARSHAL, AND SETTING DEADLINE--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

Download PDF

Roden v. Floyd et al Doc. 65 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JONATHAN RODEN, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:16-CV-11208 District Judge Victoria A. Roberts Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti MICHELLE FLOYD, and RICHARD CADY, Defendants. ___________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (DE 59), (2) DIRECTING IMMEDIATE SERVICE BY THE U.S. MARSHAL, AND (3) SETTING DEADLING FOR AMENDMENT OF THE PLEADINGS This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff Jonathan Roden’s unopposed motion to file an amended complaint. (DE 59.) For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without the assistance of counsel, filed his complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis in the Western District of Michigan on April 4, 2016. (DE 1.) The Court granted his application on the same day and transferred the case to this District. (DEs 3, 4.) Plaintiff asserted claims for retaliation under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United 1 Dockets.Justia.com States Constitution against three defendants, Michelle Floyd, Richard Cady and Beverly Haynes-Love, alleging that they transferred him from G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility (JCF) to a more restrictive correctional facility and removed him from Jackson College classes because of grievances he filed regarding the education program and treatment of students. (DE 1.) On March 15, 2018, the Court entered an Opinion and Order, adopting my Report and Recommendation, and granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (DEs 52, 57.) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Haynes-Love were dismissed with prejudice, and his claims against Defendants Floyd and Cady are to proceed to trial. (Id.) On May 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to amend the complaint, in which he seeks to add two defendants, Shawn Brewer, Warden at JCF, and James Roth, Inspector at JCF, and to add an additional cause of action against all Defendants for “violation of the United States Constitution Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and Michigan common law by civil conspiracy through concerted actions, manufacturing a false sexual harassment allegation.” (DE 59.) Defendants did not file a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. II. STANDARD Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a party may amend its pleadings at this stage of the proceedings only after obtaining leave of court. The 2 Rule provides that the Court should freely give leave for a party to amend its pleading “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Nevertheless, leave to amend ‘should be denied if the amendment is brought in bad faith, for dilatory purposes, results in undue delay or prejudice to the opposing party, or would be futile.”’ Carson v. U.S. Office of Special Counsel, 663 F.3d 487, 495 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Crawford v. Roane, 53 F.3d 750, 753 (6th Cir. 1995)). In addition, the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan require a party moving to amend a pleading to “attach the proposed amended pleading to the motion.” E.D. Mich. LR 15.1. Any amendment to a pleading must “reproduce the entire pleading as amended, and may not incorporate any prior pleading by reference.” Id. III. ANALYSIS The Court concludes that, under the liberal amendment standard outlined in Rule 15(a)(2), Plaintiff is entitled to amend his Complaint. There is no indication that the amendment was brought in bad faith or for dilatory purposes. Nor does it appear to be prejudicial to the remaining defendants, who have chosen not to respond in opposition to the motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion (DE 59) is GRANTED. In addition, Plaintiff has followed the requirements outlined in the Local Rules to “attach the proposed amended pleading to the motion.” E.D. Mich. LR 3 15.1. (See DE 59 at Page ID 1047-1058.) Because Plaintiff is incarcerated and proceeding pro se, the Court will not require Plaintiff to re-file that amended complaint, but instead will treat DE 59 at Page ID 1047-1058 as the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Further, the U.S. Marshal is DIRECTED to immediately serve a summons and copy of the Amended Complaint (DE 59 at Page ID 1047-1058), and a copy of this Order, without prepayment of the costs of such service, upon: 1. Shawn Brewer, Warden, at G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility (JCF), 3510 North Elm Street, Jackson, Michigan 49201; and 2. James Roth, Inspector, at G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility (JCF), 3510 North Elm Street, Jackson, Michigan 49201 The Marshal may collect the usual and customary costs from Plaintiff after effecting service. Finally, in light of the age of this case and the stage of the proceedings, the Court will further ORDER that the deadline for any party to seek leave to amend the pleadings is Friday, September 28, 2018. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 5, 2018 s/Anthony P. Patti Anthony P. Patti UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on September 5, 2018, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. s/Michael Williams Case Manager for the Honorable Anthony P. Patti (313) 234-5200 5

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.