United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S PENDING MOTIONS
KAREN L. STROMBOM, Magistrate Judge.
This matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Local Rules MJR 3 and 4, and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. Currently before the undersigned are two motions filed by plaintiff, Mr. Goulsby. Mr. Goulsby asks for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 35) and for leave to amend the complaint. Dkt. 36.
In this action plaintiff alleges that his right to practice his religion by attending Christian church and his right to recreation and exercise were violated by the Defendants when they placed him in segregation at the Thurston County Jail. Dkt. 7.
Plaintiff filed his complaint in November of 2013 but the Court could not serve a defendant until June of 2014 due to the fact that Mr. Goulsby failed to properly identify defendants. Dkt. 24. After defendants filed an Answer the undersigned entered a pretrial order and set an October 31, 2014 discovery cutoff date. Dkt. 29. Three days after the discovery cutoff the Court received plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel and amend the complaint. Dkt. 35 and 36.
A. Motion to amend the complaint.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) governs amendment of a complaint before trial:
(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within:
(A) 21 days after serving it, or
(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 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.
(2) Other Amendments. 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)(2) applies in this case as the answer was filed in July of 2014 and the motion to amend was not filed until November 2014, over three months later. Dkt. 28 and 36.
A court's decision to deny a motion to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but there are policy reasons for liberally granting motions to amend when justice so requires. Sweaney v. Ada County, 119 F.3d 1385, 1392 (9th Cir, 1997). The factors the undersigned must consider include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice to the opponent, and futility. Id.
The discovery cutoff date has passed and discovery is closed. Dkt. 29. The delay in filing the motion alone is grounds for denial. Amendment of the complaint at this late date would necessitate reopening discovery. "If the proposed amendment requires the reopening of discovery, the prejudice to the non-moving party will be considered greater than if the proposed amendment presents only a new issue of law." Voilas v. Gen. Motors Corp., 173 F.R.D. 389, 396 (D.N.J. 1997) ( Citing Harrison Beverage Co. v. Dribeck Importers, ...