Buchanan v. Roberts

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER BUCHANAN PLAINTIFF ADC #176655

v. No: 3:24-cv-00074-BRW-PSH

MICHAEL ROBERTS, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiff Christopher Buchanan, an inmate at the Arkansas Division of Correction’s Grimes Unit, filed this lawsuit on April 26, 2024 (Doc. No. 2). Buchanan’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted (Doc. No. 8), and at the Court’s direction, he filed an amended complaint and addendum (Doc. Nos. 14-15). Service has since been issued on all defendants but has not yet been returned executed as to all defendants.1 On September 3, 2024, Buchanan moved to amend his complaint a second time (Doc. No. 65) and attached a proposed amended complaint (Doc. No. 65-1) and addendum (Doc. No. 66). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), “the court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” However, the Court may “properly deny a party’s motion to amend its complaint when such amendment would unduly

1 Service is outstanding as to defendants Deputy Director William Straughn, Coach Bata, and Sergeant Jeremy Haverstick. See Doc. Nos. 42, 53 & 58. prejudice the non-moving party or would be futile.” Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Kozohorsky v. Harmon, 332 F.3d 1141, 1144 (8th Cir.2003)). The allegations in Buchanan’s proposed second amended complaint are of the

same nature as those in his existing amended complaint. Further, the Court does not find Buchanan’s proposed amended complaint to be futile or that it unduly prejudices the defendants. Accordingly, Buchanan’s motion to amend (Doc. No. 65) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to file his proposed second amended complaint and addendum (Doc. Nos. 65-1 & 66) as his Second Amended Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18" day of September, 2024.

mmm