OWENS v. ARMSTRONG et al, No. 1:2015cv04911 - Document 28 (D.N.J. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 8/11/2016. (dmr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
OWENS v. ARMSTRONG et al Doc. 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY RICHARD OWENS, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 15-4911 (JBS-AMD) v. MEMORANDUM OPINION SOUTH WOODS STATE PRISON, Defendant. SIMANDLE, Chief District Judge 1. On June 18, 2015, Plaintiff Richard Owens submitted a pro se complaint asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. Complaint, Docket Entry 1. 2. The Court reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and determined only Plaintiff’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act against South Woods State Prison could proceed at that time. Opinion and Order, Docket Entries 21 and 22. 3. The Court also granted Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of pro bono counsel. Pro bono counsel filed the instant motion to amend the complaint on June 2, 2016. Docket Entry 26. 4. Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to amend a pleading once as a matter of course Dockets.Justia.com twenty-one (21) days after serving the pleading or twenty-one (21) days “after a responsive pleading or service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a)(1)(A)-(B). Defendant was served one day after this motion was filed. See Certificate of Service, Docket Entry 27. 5. Plaintiff is entitled under Rule 15 to amend his complaint at this time. Additionally, the Court has reviewed the proposed amended complaint and concludes Plaintiff has sufficiently pled facts to state claims under the Americans with Disabilities and Rehabilitation Acts. Therefore, the motion to amend shall be granted. 6. An appropriate order follows. August 11, 2016 Date s/ Jerome B. Simandle JEROME B. SIMANDLE Chief U.S. District Judge 2
]]>
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.
