McDaniels v. Stewart, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05943-BHS-DWC
| Decision Date | 13 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 3:15-CV-05943-BHS-DWC |
| Parties | PETER J. MCDANIELS, Plaintiff, v. BELINDA STEWART et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
The District Court has referred this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. This matter comes before the Court on: (1) Plaintiff's "Motion to Stay Issue #2" (hereinafter "Motion to Stay," Dkt. 140) and (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (hereinafter "Motion to Amend," Dkt. 144).1 After review of the record, the Court grants both Motions.
Plaintiff moves for the Court to stay "issue #2" in his Complaint (Dkt. 32 at page 16-26), which challenges the Department of Corrections regular practice of withholding necessary medical care. Dkt. 140 at 1. Plaintiff argues separate litigation has been initiated in this District similar to one of the legal issues raised in this case. Id. at 1-2. (citing Haldane et al. v. Hammond et al., Case No. 15-1810-RAJ). The prisoner-plaintiffs in Haldane seek certification as a class in challenging the denial of medical care related to the Department of Correction's ("DOC") Care Review Committee's withholding of necessary medical care from patients with serious and painful medical conditions, specifically, the Care Review Committee's pre-approval process. See id., Dkt. 1 (Complaint); 81 (Motion for Class Certification). The proposed class in Haldane includes "[a]ll future and current prisoners incarcerated under the jurisdiction of the Washington DOC whose access to necessary medical care has been denial, or will be subject to denial, under the Department's policies and practices governing access to healthcare requiring prior approval." Id., Dkt. 81 at 6. Plaintiff argues judicial economy and justice warrant the stay of this issue. Id. at 3-4.
"A district court has the discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court." Lockyer v. Mirant Corp. 398 F.3d 1038, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). In deciding whether to stay proceedings, the Court must weigh the possible damage a stay may cause, the hardship a party may suffer by being required to go forward, fairness and judicial economy. See Lockyer 398 F.3d at 1110. "A stay should not be granted unless it appears likely the other proceedings will be concluded within a reasonable time." Levya v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979).
Defendants assert Plaintiff is not an actual named Plaintiff in Haldane, and while the Haldane plaintiffs have recently filed a motion for class certification, the Court's decision regarding certification will not happen for months. Dkt. 146 at 9. Defendants argue final resolution of Haldane is not in the foreseeable future, which "flies in the face of [Plaintiff's] claims" asserting deteriorating health. Id. Defendants assert requiring them to continue to litigate Plaintiff's medical claims, which they allege could take more than a year, would result in a hardship. Id. Defendants also contend they have filed their Motion for Summary Judgment, noting there is no evidence to support Plaintiff's need for allergy testing. Id.
Although Plaintiff is not a named plaintiff in Haldane, a decision on the Motion for Class Certification is likely to occur in the foreseeable future and is ready for the Court's consideration on February 17, 2017. Haldane, Case No. 15-1810 at Dkt. 81 (Motion for Class Certification). If class certification is granted, Plaintiff may be included as a member of that class. At such a time, Plaintiff may elect to be a member of the class if it is certified, or opt-out and proceed with his own case. Moreover, as discussed below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 111) attacks his First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 32), which will no longer be the operative complaint in this matter upon the filing of a second amended complaint. Thus, Defendants will not suffer any prejudice or hardship due to a brief stay of this matter.
Under these circumstances, the Court concludes staying this action pending resolution of class certification in Haldane promotes judicial economy and does not prejudice Defendants.2 Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion to Stay (Dkt. 140), and this matter is stayed untilMarch 31, 2017. Plaintiff is directed to file a status report on or before March 24, 2017 advising the Court of the status of class certification in Haldane. The parties are advised until the stay is lifted, the Court will not consider any future filings, aside from the status report. The Court may strike any pleading that does not comply with this Order.
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint alleges Defendants violated his constitutional rights related to his Halal diet, allergies to soy and textured vegetable protein ("TVP"), being served rotten meat, and his religious practices. Dkt. 32. Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend his First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 32) to remove Defendants McCarty, Frakes, Wright, DOC Care Review Committee (as an entity),3 and all municipal liability claims. Dkt. 144. Plaintiff also seeks to clarify his retaliation claim and his claim related to the deprivation of fresh milk for six months. Dkt. 144. Defendants object to the amendment arguing futility. Dkt. 146.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), "[a] party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it, or 21 days after service of a responsive pleading, or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The Court should freely give leave when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A)(B) and (2). After a responsive pleading has been filed, "leave to amend should be granted unless amendment would cause prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue delay." Martinez v. Newport Beach City, 125 F.3d777, 786 (9th Cir. 1997). Further, the Ninth Circuit "established that a pro se litigant bringing a civil rights suit must have an opportunity to amend the complaint to overcome deficiencies unless it is clear that [the deficiencies] cannot be overcome by amendment." Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 1987). The denial of a motion for leave to amend pursuant to Rule 15(a) is reviewed "for abuse of discretion and in light of the strong public policy permitting amendment." Systems, Inc. v. City of Mesa, 997 F.2d 604, 614 (9th Cir. 1993).
The Court finds allowing Plaintiff to amend his First Amended Complaint will not result in undue delay; as stated above, the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion to Stay pending the resolution of class certification in Haldane. Second, it is not clear from Plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint that he would not be entitled to any relief. See Dkt. 144-1. Furthermore, the Court must also provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to amend his complaint, as Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, attempts to cure deficiencies in his First Amended Complaint raised by Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. See id; Dkt. 111. See also Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469 (9th Cir. 1992) (); Block, 832 F.2d at 1135-36. For example, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to clarify his retaliation claim and the alleged denial of fresh milk, both of which were not originally addressed in Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 111) and instead, raised in Defendants' Reply (Dkt. 159).4
Accordingly, the Court finds justice requires Plaintiff be granted leave to amend. The Clerk is directed to docket Plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint (Dkt. 144-1) as his Second Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff is advised the Second Amended Complaint will operate as a complete substitute for (rather than a mere supplement to) the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 32). In other words,an amended complaint supersedes the original in its entirety, making the original as if it never existed. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Reference to a prior pleading or another document is unacceptable.
Dated this 13th day of January, 2017.
/s/_________
David W. Christel
1. Also pending before the undersigned is: (1) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 111) which was ready for the Court's consideration on January 6, 2017; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (Dkt. 153) which was ready for the Court's consideration on January 3, 2017; (3) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. 155) which is ready for the Court's consideration on January 20, 2017; and (4) Plaintiff's Motion for Surreply (Dkt. 160) which was ready for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial