New Covenant Church, Inc. v. Armstrong

• Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
• Decided: May 21, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00040
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA BRUNSWICK DIVISION

NEW COVENANT CHURCH, INC.; CARLOS L. WILLIAMS; and FELICIA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; and CATHERINE ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:19-cv-40

v.

CARLA FUTCH; S. FERGUSON; and ONE UNKNOWN OFFICER, all in their individual capacities as police officers for the City of Brunswick, Georgia,

Defendants.

O R DE R This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Substitute One Unknown Officer with Ricky Jack Hall. Doc. 64. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend solely to add Ricky Jack Hall as a Defendant. BACKGROUND This action was removed from the Superior Court of Glynn County on March 21, 2019. Doc. 1. Plaintiff originally brought claims against several individuals, including Brunswick Police officers Carla Futch, S. Ferguson, and One Unnamed Officer. Id. at 2. On September 9, 2019, the Court entered a Scheduling Order in this case setting the deadline to file motions to amend or to add parties as September 17, 2019. Doc. 53. On September 18, 2019, Plaintiffs asked the Court for leave to amend to add Officers Samantha Spaulding and Chad Henley as Defendants. Doc. 54. The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend, doc. 57, and on December 10, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint adding two new officers and the City of Brunswick as Defendants, as well as adding a number of new claims, doc. 58. Plaintiffs now ask the Court for leave to amend to substitute Defendant One Unnamed Officer with Ricky Jack

Hall, whom they believe is the proper defendant. Doc. 64 at 2. DISCUSSION Although styled as a “Motion for Substitution,” Plaintiffs’ current Motion seeks leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Cox v. Treadway, 75 F.3d 230, 240 (6th Cir. 1996) (“Substituting a named defendant for a ‘John Doe’ defendant is considered a change in parties, not a mere substitution of parties.”). Under Rule 15(a)(2), “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave,” which “[t]he court should freely give . . . when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Unless a substantial reason exists to deny the motion, such as undue prejudice or delay, movant’s bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, or futility, the interests of justice require that leave

to amend be granted. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). At present, no substantial reason exists to deny Plaintiffs’ Motion, and Plaintiffs’ Motion is unopposed. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion. Doc. 64. Leave to amend is granted for the sole purpose of allowing Plaintiffs to add Defendant Hall. The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file their Second Amended Complaint adding Defendant Hall as a party within seven days of this Order. Plaintiffs may not add any additional claims or Defendants without an additional grant of leave to amend. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for leave to amend. Doc. 64. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend solely to add Ricky Jack Hall as a Defendant. SO ORDERED, this 21st day of May, 2020.

BENJAMIN W. CHEESBRO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA