Denton v. Rainer
3:19-cv-05743
W.D. Wash.Mar 14, 2022Background:
- Michael Denton filed suit in Aug. 2019 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging conditions of confinement (chiefly solitary confinement) and sought damages and injunctive relief; he amended the complaint in Oct. 2019.
- Denton retained counsel in Feb. 2020 and moved for a preliminary injunction in May 2021 seeking relief from solitary confinement and mental-health treatment.
- Magistrate Judge Fricke issued an R&R recommending an injunction or advancing the trial; the district court rejected the R&R, withheld ruling, and instructed the parties to file supplemental briefing and suggested an amended complaint to clarify claims.
- Denton requested leave to amend in supplemental briefing without attaching a proposed amended complaint; Fricke granted leave at a hearing, and Denton then filed a Second Amended Complaint that dropped 17 defendants, added 6 defendants, and asserted ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims for the first time.
- Defendants objected, arguing Denton failed to present a proposed amended pleading, denied them an opportunity to oppose, and that the amendment was prejudicial given a pending summary judgment motion.
- Judge Settle reviewed for clear error, concluded the Second Amended Complaint as filed was improper and prejudicial, overruled the magistrate's grant of leave to amend, and re-referred the case to the magistrate while directing Denton to follow Rule 15 and Local Civil Rule 15 procedures (including attaching a red-lined proposed amended complaint).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for magistrate's non-dispositive order granting leave to amend | Denton sought leave to amend after court invited clarification | Defendants asked district court to review de novo and to set aside magistrate order | District court applied Rule 72(a) clearly erroneous standard and reviewed for clear error; overruled magistrate's order as clearly erroneous |
| Proper scope of amendment (clarification vs. wholesale rewrite) | Denton argued amendment would clarify claims after court invitation | Defendants argued the Second Amended Complaint materially rewrote the case, adding/dropping parties and new statutory claims | Court held the Second Amended Complaint exceeded a clarifying amendment and was improper as granted |
| Prejudice given pending summary judgment and timing | Denton implicitly maintained amendment was appropriate; did not provide proposed red-lined draft in advance | Defendants argued prejudice: new claims/parties and dismissal of others while summary judgment pending could bar future claims or shift fees/costs | Court found the manner and substance of the amendment unfairly prejudicial to defendants |
| Compliance with procedural rules for amendment | Denton requested leave in briefing but did not attach a proposed amended complaint | Defendants argued Rule 15 and LCR 15 require a motion with a red-lined proposed complaint and opportunity to respond | Court instructed Denton to move under Rule 15 and Local Civ. R. 15 with a red-lined proposed complaint and gave defendants opportunity to respond before magistrate consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2010) (Rule 15 leave to amend should generally be freely given)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (factors for denying leave to amend include bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, futility, prior amendment)
- Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (prejudice to the opposing party is the primary factor in denying leave to amend)
- United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2011) (enumeration of Rule 15 factors and their application)