Texas Indigenous Council v. Simpkins, 544 F. App'x 418

Diaz leads the Texas Indigenous Council; the group gathered outside the hospital against police actions toward Macias.
Security officers informed Sergeant Simpkins of the gathering; Simpkins warned of a sidewalk obstruction under Texas law and threatened arrest if they did not disperse.
Diaz and others were arrested for obstructing the sidewalk and transported to the police facility.
Two years later, Diaz sued Simpkins and others for violations of the First Amendment and Texas Constitution, alleging unlawful arrest and violation of rights.
Defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing failure to plead §1983, standing, qualified immunity, and official immunity.
Diaz moved to amend to add §1983 relief and a Fourth Amendment wrongful-arrest claim; magistrate denied leave for lack of good cause; district court denied reconsideration and granted summary judgment on federal claim.
Diaz appeals, challenging the denial of leave to amend and seeking remand to resolve merits of the §1983 claim and any related defenses.
The court reverses, holding Diaz showed good cause to amend to invoke §1983, and remands to address the merits of the First Amendment claim and qualified immunity; it does not resolve the state-law official-immunity issue on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend.	Diaz should be allowed to amend to invoke §1983.	Missed deadline; no good cause under Rule 16; potential prejudice.	Amendment to §1983 should have been granted; remand for merits.
Whether Diaz showed good cause to add a wrongful-arrest claim.	Wrongful-arrest claim could have been raised earlier.	Proposed claim would cause late-stage prejudice; not justified by current record.	Denied due to lack of good cause and prejudice to defendants.
Whether the district court properly applied Rule 15 after finding good cause under Rule 16.	Rule 15 should permit liberal amendment once good cause is shown.	Discretion to deny based on pretrial order integrity.	Rule 15 should be liberally applied; remand to determine merits.

Fahim v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 551 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2008) (good cause under Rule 16 standard for extension of deadlines)
S&W Enters., L.L.C. v. Southtrust Bank of Ala., 315 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2003) (four-factor test for good cause; after good cause, Rule 15 applies)
Griggs v. Hinds Junior Coll., 563 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1977) (leave to amend appropriate when substantial rights at stake)
Jones v. Louisiana, 764 F.2d 1183 (5th Cir. 1985) (liberal amendment policy; technical pleading defects not fatal)
Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660 F.2d 594 (5th Cir. 1981) (liberal amendment to determine claims on merits)
Herrmann Holdings Ltd. v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 302 F.3d 552 (5th Cir. 2002) (abuse of discretion standard for leave to amend)
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. City of El Paso, 346 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2003) (considerations for extension of scheduling-order deadlines)
Hildebrand v. Honeywell, Inc., 622 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1980) (granting leave to amend; prejudice and futility considerations)