2:20-cv-01060
S.D. OhioMay 6, 2021Background:
- Mays sued the Columbus Police Department and two officers arising from his March 16, 2019 arrest and incarceration.
- The court set October 15, 2020 as the deadline to amend pleadings to add parties.
- Mays later filed a separate suit naming Franklin County Correctional Center I; that suit was dismissed with instruction to seek amendment in the original case.
- Mays filed a Motion to Amend/Correct to add Franklin County Correctional Center I as a defendant (Doc. 22) after the pleading deadline.
- Discovery has closed, Mays was deposed, and a dispositive-motion deadline was approaching, so adding a party would affect case schedule and defendants' preparation.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mays may add Franklin County Correctional Center I after the amendment deadline under Rules 15 and 16 | Mays seeks to add the jail to hold all appropriate parties accountable | Amendment is untimely, Mays was not diligent, and allowing it would prejudice defendants | Denied: Mays failed to show diligence under Rule 16; motion barred by undue delay and prejudice |
| Whether Franklin County Correctional Center I is amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 | Mays alleges the facility violated his constitutional rights and should be added | A local jail/correctional facility is not a “person” under § 1983 and thus is not a proper defendant | Court held the correctional facility is not amenable to suit under § 1983, so amendment would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 F.2d 1119 (6th Cir. 1990) (trial courts have broad discretion on motions to amend)
- Inge v. Rock Finan. Corp., 388 F.3d 930 (6th Cir. 2004) (Rule 15 favors deciding cases on the merits rather than pleading technicalities)
- Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557 (6th Cir. 1986) (courts should permit amendments to reach merits)
- Parchman v. SLM Corp., 896 F.3d 728 (6th Cir. 2018) (noting liberality in allowing amendments)
- Pittman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 901 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Foman factors that can justify denying leave to amend)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1962) (sets factors for denying leave to amend: undue delay, bad faith, futility, prejudice)
- Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888 (6th Cir. 2003) (Rule 16 good-cause inquiry centers on the movant’s diligence)