Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Armstead v. Baldwin

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

December 18, 2019

DEMARCO ARMSTEAD, Plaintiff,
v.
BALDWIN, et al., Defendants.

          Sarah D. Morrison, Judge

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

          KIMBERLY A. JOLSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 45) and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 29). For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 45) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Doc. 29) be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

         I. Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 45)

         First, Defendants Amanda Lyons, Cara Stefanko, and Deanna Jones request an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Restraining Order. (Doc. 45). Defendants represent that they did not receive Plaintiff's Motion until December 11, 2019, after the response deadline has already passed. (Id. at 1). Accordingly, they seek 21 days to respond to Plaintiff's Motion. As the Court noted in its Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 22), the allegations in Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order regarding his life-sustaining medications, (see Doc. 6), are serious. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for an Extension (Doc. 45) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants shall have until December 27, 2019, to respond to Plaintiff's Motion, giving them a total of sixteen (16) days to respond to Plaintiff's allegations. In so responding, Defendants should be mindful of the Court's directive to the Franklin County Defendants (Doc. 33) regarding the type of response necessary to address Plaintiff's allegations.

         II. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Doc. 29)

         A. Plaintiff's Motion

         Turning next to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, (Doc. 29), Plaintiff seeks to add NaphCare, the contracted health provider for the Franklin County Correctional Centers, Deputy Z. Lewis, and the Franklin County Commissioners. (See id.). The Franklin County Defendants[1] filed a response stating that they oppose only the addition of the Franklin County Commissioners as a Defendant. (Doc. 43). Accordingly, the Undersigned will focus on only this proposed amendment.

         B. Standard

         Trial courts enjoy broad discretion in deciding motions for leave to amend. See Gen. Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 F.2d 1119, 1130 (6th Cir. 1990). Because Plaintiff timely moved to amend under the Court's scheduling order, (see Doc. 66), the Court considers Plaintiff's Motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). This rule encompasses a liberal policy in favor of granting amendments and “reinforce[s] the principle that cases ‘should be tried on their merits rather than the technicalities of pleadings.'” Inge v. Rock Finan. Corp., 388 F.3d 930, 936 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 559 (6th Cir. 1986)). In interpreting this Rule, “[i]t should be emphasized that the case law in this Circuit manifests liberality in allowing amendments to a complaint.” Parchman v. SLM Corp., 896 F.3d 728, 736 (6th Cir. 2018) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

In the absence of any apparent or declared reason-such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.-the leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.”

Pittman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 901 F.3d 619, 640-41 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).

         C. Discussion

         Defendants assert that the County Commissioners should not be added as a Defendant because they “are not responsible under the Ohio Revised Code for the operations of the county ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.