Michelle v. South Correctional Entity

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: May 17, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00140
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 DUSTIN MICHELLE, CASE NO. 21-0140JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 12 AMEND COMPLAINT SOUTH CORRECTIONAL 13 FACILITY, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 Before the court is Plaintiff Dustin Michelle’s motion to amend the case caption 16 and for leave to file a first amended complaint. (Mot. (Dkt. # 17).) Mr. Michelle’s 17 claims arise out of his confinement and alleged deprivation of adequate medical care at 18 the South Correctional Entity Jail (“SCORE”). (See Compl. (Dkt. # 1) ¶¶ 1-6.) Mr. 19 Michelle seeks to amend his complaint to add King County as a Defendant, include 20 factual allegations to support his claim against King County, and correct typographical 21 // 22 1 errors. (Mot. at 2; see Bingham Decl. (Dkt. # 18) ¶ 2, Ex. 1 (“Prop. FAC”).) Mr. 2 Michelle’s motion is unopposed. (See generally Dkt.)

3 When the court’s deadline for filing amended pleadings has not passed, the proper 4 standard for considering a motion to amend a complaint is provided by Federal Rule of 5 Civil Procedure 15(a). Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 6 (9th Cir. 1992)). Rule 15(a)(2) provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to 7 amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Five factors are used to 8 assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3)

9 prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether the party has 10 previously amended its pleading. Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th 11 Cir. 1990) (citing Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 12 1989)). 13 The court concludes that all factors weigh in favor of allowing amendment. This

14 case is still in its infancy. The deadline for amending pleadings is June 8, 2022, and the 15 discovery cutoff deadline is August 8, 2022. (Sched. Order (Dkt. # 16) at 1.) The 16 parties, including King County, will have sufficient time to complete discovery without 17 any adverse impacts to either them or the court’s schedule. Additionally, Mr. Michelle 18 has not previously amended his complaint (see generally Dkt.), and there is no indication

19 of bad faith or futility in Mr. Michelle’s proposal to add King County as a Defendant at 20 this early stage in the litigation. 21 Accordingly, the court GRANTS Mr. Michelle’s unopposed motion to amend the 22 case caption and file an amended complaint that includes King County as a Defendant 1 (Dkt. # 17). The court further ORDERS Mr. Michelle to file his first amended complaint 2 (see Dkt. # 18-1) on the court’s electronic docket within seven (7) days of the filing date

3 of this order. 4 Dated this 17th day of May, 2021. 5 A 6 7 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22