HOUNCHELL v. State of Florida Department of Corrections

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedJuly 6, 2023
Docket1:23-cv-21346
StatusUnknown

This text of HOUNCHELL v. State of Florida Department of Corrections (HOUNCHELL v. State of Florida Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
HOUNCHELL v. State of Florida Department of Corrections, (S.D. Fla. 2023).

Opinion

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Kimberly Hounchell, Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-21346-Civ-Scola )

State of Florida Department of ) Corrections, and others, ) Defendants. )

Order This matter is before the Court on Defendant Daneisah Sims’s motion to dismiss (Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 12) and Plaintiff Kimberly Hounchell’s motion for leave to amend her complaint (Mot. Leave Am., ECF No. 13). The Plaintiff responded to the motion to dismiss as part of her motion for leave to amend. (Mot. Leave Am.) The Defendant has replied in support of her motion, in which she also responded to the Plaintiff’s motion. (Reply, ECF No. 19.) The Plaintiff has not replied in support of her motion for leave to amend, and the time to do so has passed. After careful consideration of the briefing, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court grants the Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 13) and therefore denies as moot the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 12.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a party seeking to amend its complaint more than twenty-one days after the defendant has served a responsive pleading or a motion to dismiss may do so only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. Leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Rule 15(a) reflects a policy of “liberally permitting amendments” and absent a “substantial reason to deny leave to amend” a plaintiff’s request should be granted. Espey v. Wainwright, 734 F.2d 748, 750 (11th Cir. 1984). The Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend her complaint in response to the deficiencies identified in Defendant Sims’s motion to dismiss, and to assert her claims only against Defendant Sims. (Mot. Leave Am. ¶¶ 1-2; Prop. Am. Compl., ECF No. 13-1.) Defendant Sims responds that the complaint should be dismissed with leave to amend, and that the proposed amended complaint is futile. (Reply at 2-3.) More specifically, Defendant Sims argues that the proposed amended complaint pleads only conclusory allegations and fails to plead facts sufficient to support a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at 3-7.) First, dismissal with leave to amend would be inappropriate here, where the Plaintiff has provided a proposed amended complaint and attached it to her motion for leave to amend, in compliance with the Local Rules. S.D. Fla. L.R. 15.1. Second, the Court cannot say that the proposed amended complaint is clearly insufficient or frivolous, so it does not find it to be futile. Van Cleve v. Ross, No. 20-23611-CIV, 2020 WL 13413755, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 28, 2020) (Scola, J.) (“Leave to amend should not be denied on the ground of futility unless the proposed amendment is clearly insufficient or frivolous on its face.”) (cleaned up). The Plaintiff supports her allegations against Defendant Sims with specific facts detailing serious accusations of abuse by Sims in Sims’s role as a correctional officer at the Plaintiff's correctional institution. (See, e.g., Prop. Am. Compl. 94 16-24.) The seriousness of the alleged misconduct by Defendant Sims clearly meets the “obduracy and wantonness” requirements for deliberate indifference that the Defendant argues must apply here. (Resp. at 4.) The pleadings also clearly demonstrate conduct that, if proven true, “all reasonable government actors in the defendant’s place would know .. . violated federal law.” (Id. at 5.) Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. (ECF No. 13.) The Plaintiff shall file her amended complaint (ECF No. 13-1) as a separate docket entry no later than July 11, 2023. The Defendant shall file a response to the amended complaint no later than July 25, 2023. Finally, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied as moot. (ECF No. 12.) Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on July 6, 2023.

dobert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge

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

Related

Herbert Espey v. Louie L. Wainwright
734 F.2d 748 (Eleventh Circuit, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
HOUNCHELL v. State of Florida Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hounchell-v-state-of-florida-department-of-corrections-flsd-2023.