Detective Moses President v. Gov't of the V.I.

• Decision Date: 29 November 2022
• Docket Number: 1:17-cv-00046 (CAK)
• Parties: DETECTIVE MOSES PRESIDENT, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT, VIRGIN ISLANDS TERRITORIAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, POLICE OFFICER SHONNETH GITTENS, POLICE OFFICER D'NEICIA JACOBS, POLICE OFFICER ALMONT KING, and A'KEYMA BARTHLETT Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands

DETECTIVE MOSES PRESIDENT, Plaintiff,
v.
GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT, VIRGIN ISLANDS TERRITORIAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, POLICE OFFICER SHONNETH GITTENS, POLICE OFFICER D'NEICIA JACOBS, POLICE OFFICER ALMONT KING, and A'KEYMA BARTHLETT Defendants.

No. 1:17-cv-00046 (CAK)

United States District Court, D. Virgin Islands, St. Croix Division

November 29, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

CHERYL ANN KRAUSE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiff's Notice of Filing a First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 69), Defendants Gittens, Jacobs, and King's Motions to Strike the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. Nos. 78, 80), Plaintiff's Opposition to their Motions to Strike (Dkt. No. 87), and Gittens, Jacobs, and King's Replies to Plaintiff's Opposition (Dkt. Nos. 88, 89), as well as Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 70) and Defendants' Oppositions to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Dkt. Nos. 79, 81, 82). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Gittens, Jacobs, and King's Motions to Strike the First Amended Complaint in full and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint in part.

1

I. Background^[1]

Detective Moses President (the Plaintiff) seeks to hold Shonneth Gittens, D'Neicia Jacobs, Almont King, and A'Keyma Barthlett (collectively, the Defendants) liable for injuries Plaintiff sustained from police friendly fire. According to Plaintiff's Complaint, in response to reports of a shooting at a St. Croix bar on May 25, 2017, Plaintiff called the 911 operator, Barthlett, and warned her that he was approaching the scene in plain clothes.^[2]Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 18-19, 21-23. But Barthlett purportedly failed to relay that information to the other police officers converging on the bar. Id. ¶¶ 23, 51.

When the Plaintiff arrived, he saw a man brandishing a firearm. Id. ¶¶ 29-30. Officers Gittens and Jacobs reached the scene at approximately the same time and, in alleged violation of police procedure, drove their police vehicle directly in front of the armed man. Id. ¶ 31. Startled by their rapid approach, the man aimed his weapon at Gittens and Jacobs. Id. ¶ 32. Plaintiff warned the man to “drop the gun,” but the man did not do so. Id. ¶¶ 33-34. To protect Gittens and Jacobs, Plaintiff shot the man. Id. ¶ 35. According to the Complaint, after witnessing the plain-clothed Plaintiff fire his gun, another officer present at the bar-King-shot Plaintiff in the back without warning. Id. ¶¶ 37-40. Allegedly, neither Gittens nor Jacobs came to Plaintiff's aid. Id. ¶ 41. Plaintiff sustained serious injuries from the gunshot and was subsequently hospitalized. See id. ¶¶ 44-45.

2

Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendants, as well as several Virgin Islands government entities, on August 29, 2017. Id. ¶¶ 7-9, 10-17. The Complaint included five counts, one federal and the remainder under Virgin Islands law: (I) that the Defendants, in their individual capacities, violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 56-65; (II) that Gittens and Jacobs were negligent and the Government of the Virgin Islands was vicariously liable for their negligence, id. ¶¶ 66-72; (III) that King was negligent and the Government of the Virgin Islands was vicariously liable for his negligence, id. ¶¶ 73-78; (IV) that Barthlett was negligent and the Government of the Virgin Islands was vicariously liable for her negligence, id. ¶¶ 79-84; and (V) that the government entities were negligent, id. ¶¶ 85-91.

After nearly a year of inactivity, the Defendants and government entities moved to dismiss the Complaint on June 19, 2018 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Dkt. No. 28. Plaintiff in turn moved to strike their motion as untimely. Dkt. No. 55. The Court also stayed discovery pending a resolution of the Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 52. This litigation then remained dormant until it was reassigned to the undersigned Judge on March 25, 2022. See Dkt. No. 58.

On August 31, 2022, while the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike were still pending, Plaintiff filed both a First Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 69, and a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 70. The Amended Complaint did not alter the factual allegations nor Count I of the original Complaint. Dkt. No. 69-1 at 4-9. But the Amended Complaint revised Counts II through IV by deleting the original Complaint's references to the Government of the Virgin Islands' vicarious liability for the Defendants'

3

negligence. Id. at 8-11. The Amended Complaint also omitted Count V of the original Complaint and relinquished any claims against the government entities. Id. at 11-12. Instead, the Amended Complaint added new Counts V through VII alleging, respectively, that Gittens and Jacobs, King, and Barthlett committed gross negligence. Id. at 11-14.

Two weeks later, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, but dismissing sua sponte Counts II through V of the original Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 72 at 12. The Court held that Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Virgin Islands Tort Claims Act, V.I. Code. Ann. tit. 33, § 3401 et seq. (VITCA), deprived the Court of jurisdiction over Plaintiff's vicarious and direct liability claims against the government entities, see Dkt. No. 72 at 11. By resolving the Motion to Dismiss, this Court lifted the stay of discovery. Id. at 12.

The Defendants then responded to Plaintiff's amended pleading. Gittens and Jacobs moved to strike the Amended Complaint as untimely, Dkt. No. 78, as did King, Dkt. No. 80. Plaintiff filed an Opposition to those Motions to Strike, Dkt. No. 87, to which Gittens and Jacobs, Dkt. No. 88, and King, Dkt. No. 89, replied. Separately, the Defendants opposed Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. See Dkt. Nos. 79 (Gittens and Jacobs), 81 (Barthlett), 82 (King). This Opinion resolves those outstanding motions.

4

II. Discussion^[3]

A. Applicable Law

1. Motions to Strike the First Amended Complaint

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the district courts to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). However, courts may also strike entire pleadings if they are untimely. See Holland v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 475 F.Supp.3d 272, 278 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); Dehart v. Homeq Servicing Corp., No. 11-CV-416, 2011 WL 13137379, at *1 (E.D. Pa. June 2, 2011).

2. Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint

A plaintiff may amend its complaint once as a matter of course within 21 days of service of an answer or a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), (e), or (f). Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B). Otherwise, written consent of the defendants or leave of the court is required for any amendments to the complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Leave to amend a complaint generally should “be freely granted.” Adams v. Gould Inc., 739 F.2d 858, 864 (3d Cir. 1984). But a court may deny leave to amend when “there is undue delay, . . . prejudice, [or] futility.” Talley v. Wetzel, 15 F.4th 275, 286 n.6 (3d Cir. 2021).

5

B. Analysis

1. Motions to Strike the First Amended Complaint

By filing a First Amended Complaint without Defendants' consent or leave of the Court, Plaintiff seeks to amend as a matter of course. But the Defendants served Plaintiff with a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) on June 19, 2018,^[4] so the deadline for amendment as a matter of course expired on July 10 of that year. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B). Accordingly, Plaintiff's attempt to amend without Defendants' consent or leave of the court is more than four years too late.^[5]The Court will therefore grant Defendants Gittens, Jacobs, and King's Motions to Strike the First Amended Complaint. See Davis v. Corr. Med. Servs., 760 F.Supp.2d 469, 474 (D. Del.) (striking an amended complaint improperly filed without consent of the defendants nor leave of the court), aff'd, 436 Fed.Appx. 52 (3d Cir. 2011).

6

2. Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint

Plaintiff also requests leave of the Court to amend his Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). In his proposed amendments, Plaintiff recharacterizes his negligence theory against the Defendants by no longer invoking vicarious liability, omits all claims against the government entities, and adds gross negligence claims against the Defendants. Defendants oppose those amendments on three grounds: first, they contend that Plaintiff unduly delayed in seeking to amend his Complaint; second, they argue that the proposed amendments would prejudice them; and third, they assert that these amendments would be futile. The Court addresses each of these objections in turn and explains why the Court will grant leave to amend only to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief against the Defendants in their individual-as opposed to official-capacities.

i. Undue Delay

Defendants urge the Court to deny leave to amend based on Plaintiff's undue delay. Their sole argument in favor of undue delay is that Plaintiff waited several years before requesting leave to amend. But “delay alone is an insufficient ground to deny leave to amend.” Cureton v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 252 F.3d 267, 273 (3d Cir. 2001). Rather, delay becomes undue only when it imposes “an unwarranted burden on the court” in light of the plaintiff's “motives for not amending [its] complaint to assert [these] claim[s] earlier.” Adams, 739 F.2d at 868. As this case remains in its early stages and the Defendants have not alleged any improper motive on the part of the Plaintiff, the Court declines to deny leave to amend merely based on Plaintiff's delay. See Honore v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., No. 2016-CV-55,...