Owens v. O'Malley
1:23-cv-01623
| D. Maryland | Jan 28, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Mildred Deloris Owens filed suit against Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, alleging employment discrimination.
- Owens originally named several other defendants but later clarified an intent to proceed only against the Social Security Administration Commissioner; unserved parties were dismissed without prejudice.
- Plaintiff filed successive amendments to her complaint—including a proposed third amended complaint to add a specific Title VII violation regarding reassignment of duties based on age and race.
- Defendant O’Malley opposed prior amendments as futile and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim or, alternatively, for summary judgment.
- Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sought leave to file a third amended complaint to clarify and better assert her discrimination claim; Defendant did not oppose this most recent motion.
- The court had not yet set a scheduling order or begun discovery, and found no evidence of undue delay, prejudice, or bad faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should Plaintiff be allowed to file a Third Amended Complaint? | Owens argued amendment would clarify and specify a viable claim under Title VII. | Prior argument—amendment would be futile; no current response. | Leave to amend granted. |
| Was Defendant's Motion to Dismiss still viable? | Sought to proceed with new complaint rendering old motion moot. | Sought dismissal for failure to state claim or summary judgment. | Denied as moot. |
| Is there any evidence the amendment is prejudicial, futile, or in bad faith? | No—Plaintiff acted in good faith to clarify claims, and case was at an early stage. | No argument made. | Court finds no basis to deny leave. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503 (4th Cir. 1986) (leave to amend should be freely given unless amendment is prejudicial, in bad faith, or futile)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (courts should heed the mandate to freely allow amendments to pleadings)
- Galustian v. Peter, 591 F.3d 724 (4th Cir. 2010) (Fourth Circuit policy is to liberally allow amendments in furtherance of resolving cases on the merits)
- Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2006) (prejudice from amendment often turns on timing and nature of the change)