Hicks v. LNU, 2:18-cv-00850

Plaintiff Carlos Hasan Hicks (pro se) moved to amend his complaint on March 16, 2023 to add or substitute defendants (including individuals and an entity) in place of Southwest Correctional Medical Group (SWCMG).
Hicks’s underlying claims arise from alleged inadequate dental care while incarcerated in Otero County; his Second Amended Complaint was filed earlier in the case and alleges § 1983 and New Mexico Tort Claims Act claims.
Hicks previously was represented by counsel who withdrew; Hicks has litigated this case for several years and the contested events date from 2016–2019.
The Motion to Amend did not include a proposed amended pleading as required by D.N.M.LR-Civ. 15.1, and supplied only names/addresses without facts tying new defendants to alleged harms.
SWCMG opposed the Motion; a Motion to Dismiss by SCMG and an ordered Martinez report were already pending when Hicks filed his Motion.
The magistrate judge recommended denying Hicks’s Motion to Amend for three independent reasons: failure to comply with the local rule, undue delay, and futility of the proposed amendments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Compliance with D.N.M.LR-Civ. 15.1 (attachment requirement)	Hicks sought to add/replace defendants but did not attach a proposed amended complaint.	SWCMG argued procedural defects and opposed the amendment.	Denied: Hicks failed to comply with the local rule; noncompliance is an independent basis to deny leave.
Undue delay in seeking amendment	Hicks did not explain why the new parties/changes were not alleged earlier.	SWCMG emphasized the lateness and prejudice from adding parties after discovery/motions.	Denied: Court found unexplained and undue delay; amendment would further delay litigation.
Futility — failure to state a claim / lack of particularized allegations	Hicks offered general allegations and names but little or no factual allegations tying new defendants to harms.	SWCMG argued the proposed additions lack factual basis and would not survive dismissal.	Denied: Amendment would be futile because pleadings are conclusory and lack facts sufficient under Iqbal/Twombly.
Futility — supervisory/respondeat superior liability (§ 1983 and NMTCA)	Hicks appears to seek liability for corporate/supervisory defendants based on staff actions.	SWCMG argued there is no respondeat superior under § 1983 and supervisory liability requires an affirmative link; NMTCA requires statutory elements.	Denied: Court held Hicks failed to allege supervisory personal participation or required elements for NMTCA/respondeat superior liability; amendment futile.

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend should be freely given but denial is appropriate for reasons like undue delay or futility)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleadings must contain factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim)
Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2006) (undue delay and moving-target litigation justify denial of amendments)
Schepp v. Fremont Cnty., 900 F.2d 1448 (10th Cir. 1990) (amendment is futile if it could not withstand a motion to dismiss)
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (pro se pleadings are construed liberally but must follow procedural rules)
Worrell v. Henry, 219 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2000) (supervisory liability under § 1983 requires an affirmative link between supervisor and constitutional deprivation)
Pahls v. Thomas, 718 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2013) (liability under § 1983 must be based on a defendant’s own individual actions)
Chambers v. NASCO, 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (courts have inherent authority to manage their dockets and sanction dilatory or abusive litigation conduct)