McDonald v. Hall, No. 78-1083
| Decision Date | 26 July 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1083 |
| Parties | Anthony F. McDONALD, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Frank A. HALL, Defendant, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Anthony F. McDonald on brief, pro se.
Lee Carl Bromberg, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Boston, Mass., on brief, for defendant, appellee.
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, CAMPBELL and BOWNES, Circuit Judges.
Anthony McDonald appeals from two orders of the district court. The first granted summary judgment for the corrections officials in regard to their decision not to provide a Catholic group religious service to the departmental segregation unit (hereinafter "Block 10" or "d.s.u."); the other denied his motion to amend the complaint. 1 We affirm the former, and remand as to the latter.
The corrections officials filed a motion to dismiss. Thereafter, at a hearing on several matters held on January 31, 1978, they filed an affidavit by an associate commissioner of the department. Relying upon this, the court granted summary judgment. O'Brien v. DiGrazia, 544 F.2d 543, 545 n. 2 (1st Cir. 1976), Cert. denied, 431 U.S. 914, 97 S.Ct. 2173, 53 L.Ed.2d 223 (1977). Haley's affidavit, which was not controverted, stated that it would be unsafe to bring the Block 10 prisoners to services held in the general population area; that it was unsafe to hold group religious services within Block 10; that if such services were held in Block 10 it would compel other d.s.u. prisoners, of differing religious views, to listen to these services; and that "any inmate may, upon request, avail himself of religious counselling or discussions". It is clear that the decision of the corrections officials is neither arbitrary nor without reason. Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 561 F.2d 411, 420-21 (1st Cir. 1977). The Fourth Circuit has considered the identical issue and we agree with their conclusion, that under these circumstances, what has been provided is "as much as (the plaintiff) can constitutionally demand". Sweet v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections, 529 F.2d 854, 864 (1975).
Turning our attention to the denial of the motion to amend, we are unable to affirm that decision on the present record. The controlling standard is set out in Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). 2 It entitles a party to file an amended pleading once prior to the adverse party's serving a responsive pleading. See note 2. Neither a motion to dismiss nor one for summary judgment is a responsive pleading for purposes of Rule 15(a). McLellan v. Mississippi Power & Light Co., 526 F.2d 870, 872 n. 2 (5th Cir. 1976); 3 Moore's Federal Practice, § 15.07(2) at 851-52. On the present record, it is unclear whether the motion to file an amended complaint was filed prior to the hearing on January 31, 1978; 3 and, if not filed until that date, whether it was denied before or after the court granted the motion for summary judgment. 4 In the present case, McDonald may well have had a right to amend his complaint prior to the court's acting on summary judgment. 5 Even if appellant was not entitled to amend, the court's action would require "some justification . . . for a refusal". Ondis v. Barrows, 538 F.2d 904, 909 (1st Cir. 1976) (citations omitted).
The present record does not disclose what the court's basis was for the denial. It is therefore necessary to remand so that the district court can explain and/or reconsider its decision.
The judgment of the district court is vacated; the order in regard to group religious services is affirmed; the denial of the motion to amend the pleadings is remanded for further consideration in light of the prior discussion.
1 The motion is captioned as one to file a supplemental complaint. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(d), such a complaint should set "forth transactions or occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented." The original complaint was filed on April 25, 1977, yet the hearing complained of in the supplemental complaint took place on March 9, 1977. For this reason, the motion is, in fact, one to amend the original...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of Cal., Inc.
...at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Since defendants' motion to dismiss is not a "responsive pleading", McDonald v. Hall, 1 Cir. 1978, 579 F.2d 120, 121, plaintiff was entitled to amend her complaint without leave of court initially. Defendant objected, however, to plaintiff......
-
Lockhart v. Cedar Rapids Community School Dist.
...McCrary v. Poythress, 638 F.2d 1308, 1314 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 865, 102 S.Ct. 325, 70 L.Ed.2d 165 (1981); McDonald v. Hall, 579 F.2d 120 (1st Cir.1978). Accordingly, the School District has yet to file a responsive pleading to the original complaint. Lockhart is therefore perm......
-
Starns v. Avent
...Co., 526 F.2d 870, 872 n. 2 (5th Cir.1976), modified on reh'g on other grounds, 545 F.2d 919 (5th Cir.1977). See also McDonald v. Hall, 579 F.2d 120 (1st Cir.1978); Fuhrer v. Fuhrer, 292 F.2d 140 (7th Cir.1961); United States v. 64.88 Acres of Land, 25 F.R.D. 88 (W.D.Pa.1960); Wright & Mill......
-
Caldwell v. Miller
... ... Page 598 ... decided on summary judgment. See, e.g., McDonald v. Hall, 579 F.2d 120, 121 (1st Cir.1978) (inmates held in disciplinary detention); Sweet v. South ... ...
-
Pleading
..., 537 F.3d 565, 574 (6th Cir. 2008) (“A motion to dismiss is not considered a responsive pleading under Rule 15(a).).” McDonald v. Hall , 579 F.2d 120, 121 (1st Cir. 1978) (“Neither a motion to dismiss nor one for summary judgment is a responsive pleading for purposes of Rule 15(a).).” Fost......