218 A.3d 543
R.I.2019Background
- In April 2010 Gallop alleges a fellow inmate (Rosado) attacked him at the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI); Gallop claims a correctional officer (Galligan) had warned others and abandoned his post, enabling the assault.
- Gallop was convicted of murder and related offenses in May 2010 and is serving consecutive life sentences plus additional terms.
- Gallop filed a civil suit in November 2010 alleging negligence and multiple state-law torts; an amended complaint (April 2013) named Rosado and Galligan but did not assert federal constitutional claims.
- On the eve of trial the Superior Court raised R.I. Gen. Laws § 13-6-1 (the civil-death statute), defendants moved to dismiss, and Gallop sought leave to file a second amended complaint adding § 1983 and other constitutional claims.
- The Superior Court dismissed the first amended complaint under the civil-death statute and initially did not rule on the motion to amend; this Court (Gallop II) affirmed the dismissal but remanded for a reasoned decision on the motion to amend.
- On remand the Superior Court denied leave to file the second amended complaint because of undue delay, closed discovery, and substantial prejudice to defendants; the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial justice abused discretion in denying leave to file a second amended complaint | Gallop: amendment merely clarified tort claims and added constitutional claims; should be freely allowed; no prejudice because no new discovery needed | Defendants: amendment came on eve of trial after years of delay, discovery closed, would cause undue prejudice and require significant new discovery | Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion: undue delay, closed discovery, and substantial prejudice justified refusal to amend |
| Whether § 13-6-1 (civil-death statute) is unconstitutional under federal Supremacy Clause or otherwise invalid so as to permit state-law tort claims to proceed | Gallop: § 13-6-1 conflicts with federal law/constitutional rights and should not bar his claims | Defendants: statute operates to extinguish most civil rights of those serving life; plaintiff failed to timely assert constitutional challenge | Court did not reach the merits of constitutionality on this appeal; constitutional challenge is barred by procedural rules because the § 1983 claims were not before the trial court when the statute was applied |
| Whether the court erred in addressing the motion to amend before deciding constitutionality of § 13-6-1 | Gallop: statute should have been invalidated first, then motion to amend granted for state-law claims | Defendants: there was no pending complaint unless amendment was allowed; thus sequencing was appropriate | Court: sequencing was proper — nothing for the trial court to rule on absent granting the motion to amend; appellate review limited to whether denial was an abuse of discretion |
| Whether Gallop preserved federal/constitutional arguments for this Court | Gallop: seeks to raise constitutional invalidity of § 13-6-1 to allow state claims to proceed | Defendants: such arguments were not raised timely in trial court and cannot be considered now | Court: raise-or-waive rule bars late constitutional challenges here; exception for novel constitutional rules does not apply given long-standing statute and lack of timely raising |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallop v. Adult Correctional Institutions, 182 A.3d 1137 (R.I. 2018) (prior appeal: affirmed dismissal under civil-death statute but remanded for decision on motion to amend)
- State v. Gallop, 89 A.3d 795 (R.I. 2014) (criminal conviction and sentencing affirmed)
- Barrette v. Yakavonis, 966 A.2d 1231 (R.I. 2009) (standard: leave to amend lies within trial court’s discretion)
- Weybosset Hill Investments, LLC v. Rossi, 857 A.2d 231 (R.I. 2004) (Rule 15 permits liberal amendment absent extreme prejudice)
- Faerber v. Cavanagh, 568 A.2d 326 (R.I. 1990) (undue delay and need for significant new discovery justify denial of amendment)
- Hogan v. McAndrew, 131 A.3d 717 (R.I. 2016) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- Cusick v. Cusick, 210 A.3d 1199 (R.I. 2019) (raise-or-waive rule for appellate review)
- In re Miguel A., 990 A.2d 1216 (R.I. 2010) (narrow exception to raise-or-waive for novel constitutional rules)