Quigley v. City of Huntington WV et al, No. 3:2017cv01906 - Document 32 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND granting Plaintiff's 28 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; directing that the second amended complaint is considered filed as of today's date; further directing the Cle rk of Court to issue summonses for defendants Williamson,Koher, Smith, and Talbert and provide the summonses and copies of the second amended complaint to the United States Marshals Service; directing the UnitedStates Marshals Service to serve the aforementioned defendants with theappropriate summons and complaint pursuant to Rule 4, Fed. R. Civ. P. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 9/12/2017. (cc: Plaintiff; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (jsa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Quigley v. City of Huntington WV et al Doc. 32 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF W EST VIRGIN IA H U N TIN GTON D IVISION H ARRY LAW REN CE QU IGLEY, Plain tiff, v. Cas e N o . 3 :17-cv-0 19 0 6 CITY OF H U N TIN GTON W V; SH AN E BILLS ( in bo th h is o fficial an d p e rs o n al cap acity) ; JOSEPH CICCARELLI in bo th h is o fficial an d p e rs o n al cap acity) ; JOEY KOH ER in bo th h is o fficial an d p e rs o n al cap acity) ; JASON SMITH in bo th h is o fficial an d p e rs o n al cap acity) ; an d JAMES TALBERT in bo th h is o fficial an d p e rs o n al cap acity) ; D e fe n d an ts . MEMORAN D U M OPIN ION AN D ORD ER GRAN TIN G MOTION TO AMEN D Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Am ended Com plaint. (ECF No. 28). Defendants have filed a response in opposition to the m otion, and Plaintiff has filed a reply m em orandum . (ECF Nos. 30 , 31). Accordingly, the issues are fully briefed, and the Court finds no need for oral argum ent. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that a party m ay am end its pleading with leave of court, and leave should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Under Rule 15, a court should deny a m otion to am end ‘only where it would be prejudicial, there has been bad faith, or the am endm ent would be 1 Dockets.Justia.com futile.’” Pearson v. McFadden, No. CV 9:14-3943-TMC, 20 17 WL 3485645, at *9 (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 20 17) (quoting Nourison Rug Corp. v. Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295, 298 (4th Cir. 20 0 8)); also Equal Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Assocs., 60 2 F.3d 597, 60 3 (4th Cir. 20 10 ) (“A district court m ay deny a m otion to am end when the am endm ent would be prejudicial to the opposing party, the m oving party has acted in bad faith, or the am endm ent would be futile.”). “If the underlying facts or circum stances relied upon by a plaintiff m ay be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the m erits. … [T]he grant or denial of an opportunity to am end is within the discretion of the District Court, but outright refusal to grant the leave without any justifying reason appearing for the denial is not an exercise of discretion; it is m erely abuse of that discretion and inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Rules.” Fom an v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). In this case, as Plaintiff points out, the defendants will not be prejudiced by an am endm ent given that discovery is still in its early stages. The purpose of the am ended com plaint, in large part, is to add additional defendants and dism iss a claim for special dam ages that is now m oot. As Plaintiff only recently learned the nam es of the additional defendants and his claim for special dam ages only recently becam e m oot, bad faith is not present in Plaintiff’s request for leave to am end. Moreover, based upon the defendants’ contention that Plaintiff did not state sufficient factual allegations against them in the first am ended com plaint, Plaintiff attem pts in the second am ended com plaint to correct and clarify his causes of action. These are all appropriate reasons for seeking an am endm ent. Finally, Plaintiff’s proposed am endm ent is not futile. “A proposed am endm ent is considered futile where it ‘fails to state a claim under the applicable rules and accom panying standards.’” Phillips v. Brock & Scott, PLLC, No. CV PX 16-3899, 20 17 2 WL 3226866, at *6 (D. Md. J uly 28, 20 17) (quoting Katy le v. Penn N at. Gam ing Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 471 (4th Cir. 20 11)). The court is required to hold a pro se plaintiff to less stringent standards than a plaintiff represented by counsel and m ust construe pro se com plaints liberally. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (20 0 7). Applying those principles to Plaintiff’s proposed am ended com plaint, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has included sufficient factual allegations regarding the newly added defendants to state a potential claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Am ended Com plaint is GRAN TED . The second am ended com plaint is considered filed as of today’s date. The Clerk of Court is ORD ERED to issue sum m onses for defendants William son, Koher, Sm ith, and Talbert (all of whom are represented to be law enforcem ent officers em ployed by the Huntington Police Departm ent) and provide the sum m onses and copies of the second am ended com plaint to the United States Marshals Service. The United States Marshals Service is ORD ERED to serve the aforem entioned defendants with the appropriate sum m ons and com plaint pursuant to Rule 4, Fed. R. Civ. P. The United States Marshals Service shall prom ptly file the returns of service. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel of record, and any unrepresented party. EN TERED : Septem ber 12, 20 17 3
]]>
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.
