Davis v. Department of Corrections

W.D. Washington

Davis v. Department of Corrections

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided May 20, 2021·No. 3:20-cv-05433·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 JERRY LYNN DAVIS, CASE NO. C20-5433 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT 10 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Jerry Davis’s unopposed motion to 14 amend complaint. Dkt. 59. The Court has considered the motion and the remainder of the 15 file and hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein. 16 Davis sued the Washington Department of Corrections and individually-named 17 Defendants, primarily alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs while 18 incarcerated. Dkt. 2. Davis seeks to amend his complaint to conform his claims to 19 evidence revealed in discovery and to replace a previously-named Doe defendant with 20 Timothy Taylor, who was allegedly directly involved with Davis’s deprivation of medical 21 care. Dkt. 59. Defendants did not file any opposition to Davis’s motion. 22 1 Leave to amend a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) “shall be freely given 2 when justice so requires.” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Services, LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 892 3 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). This policy is “to be

4 applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 5 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). In determining whether to grant leave under 6 Rule 15, courts consider five factors: “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing 7 party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the 8 complaint.” United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011)

9 (emphasis added). Among these factors, prejudice to the opposing party carries the 10 greatest weight. Eminence Cap., 316 F.3d at 1052. 11 Defendants have made no showing of bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or futility, 12 and Davis has not previously amended the complaint. Thus, Davis’s motion for leave to 13 amend, Dkt. 59, is GRANTED.

14 Davis shall file the amended complaint no later than June 4, 2021. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated this 20th day of May, 2021. A 17 18 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 19 United States District Judge

20 21 22

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 JERRY LYNN DAVIS, CASE NO. C20-5433 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT 10 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Jerry Davis’s unopposed motion to 14 amend complaint. Dkt. 59. The Court has considered the motion and the remainder of the 15 file and hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein. 16 Davis sued the Washington Department of Corrections and individually-named 17 Defendants, primarily alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs while 18 incarcerated. Dkt. 2. Davis seeks to amend his complaint to conform his claims to 19 evidence revealed in discovery and to replace a previously-named Doe defendant with 20 Timothy Taylor, who was allegedly directly involved with Davis’s deprivation of medical 21 care. Dkt. 59. Defendants did not file any opposition to Davis’s motion. 22 1 Leave to amend a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) “shall be freely given 2 when justice so requires.” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Services, LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 892 3 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). This policy is “to be

4 applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 5 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). In determining whether to grant leave under 6 Rule 15, courts consider five factors: “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing 7 party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the 8 complaint.” United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011)

9 (emphasis added). Among these factors, prejudice to the opposing party carries the 10 greatest weight. Eminence Cap., 316 F.3d at 1052. 11 Defendants have made no showing of bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or futility, 12 and Davis has not previously amended the complaint. Thus, Davis’s motion for leave to 13 amend, Dkt. 59, is GRANTED.

14 Davis shall file the amended complaint no later than June 4, 2021. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated this 20th day of May, 2021. A 17 18 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 19 United States District Judge

20 21 22

Davis v. Department of Corrections, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Davis v. Department of Corrections (Davis v. Department of Corrections) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related