Scott Howder, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Uriah Howder, deceased, and Drema Deisher, as Guardian of the Estate of Ciarra Bruce, a minor v. Mount Carmel Police Department, and Sergeant Gilbert Santos-Astorga

S.D. Illinois

Scott Howder, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Uriah Howder, deceased, and Drema Deisher, as Guardian of the Estate of Ciarra Bruce, a minor v. Mount Carmel Police Department, and Sergeant Gilbert Santos-Astorga

DecidedJanuary 15, 2026

Docket3:25-cv-01897

StatusUnknown

This text of Scott Howder, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Uriah Howder, deceased, and Drema Deisher, as Guardian of the Estate of Ciarra Bruce, a minor v. Mount Carmel Police Department, and Sergeant Gilbert Santos-Astorga (Scott Howder, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Uriah Howder, deceased, and Drema Deisher, as Guardian of the Estate of Ciarra Bruce, a minor v. Mount Carmel Police Department, and Sergeant Gilbert Santos-Astorga) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scott Howder, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Uriah Howder, deceased, and Drema Deisher, as Guardian of the Estate of Ciarra Bruce, a minor v. Mount Carmel Police Department, and Sergeant Gilbert Santos-Astorga, (S.D. Ill. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SCOTT HOWDER, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Uriah Howder, deceased, and DREMA DEISHER, as Guardian of the Estate of Ciarra Bruce, a minor, Case No. 25-cv-01897-JPG Plaintiffs,

v.

MOUNT CARMEL POLICE DEPARTMENT, and SERGEANT GILBERT SANTOS-ASTORGA,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs Scott Howder, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Uriah Howder, deceased, and Drenna Deisher, as Guardian of the Estate of Ciarra Bruce, a minor’s Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 24). Plaintiffs’ ask the Court for leave to amend their complaint to correct the name of Defendant Sergeant Gilbert Santos-Astorga’s employer from the Mount Carmel Police Department to the City of Mount Carmel (“the City”). In the alternative, they request an extension of seven (7) days to file a response to Defendant Mount Carmel Police Department’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20). Defendants consented to Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendments to pleadings before trial. Since Plaintiffs’ motion seeks leave to amend their complaint to add a new party to the case, leave of court is required. Williams v. United States Postal Serv., 873 F.2d 1069, 1072 n.2 (7th Cir. 1989); Ed Miniat, Inc. v. Globe Life Ins. Grp., Inc., 805 F.2d 732, 736 (7th Cir. 1986); La Batt v. Twomey, 513 F.2d 641, 651 n.9 (7th Cir. 1975); see FED. R. CIV. P. 21 (stating in pertinent part, “[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party). Rule 15(a) instructs courts to “freely give leave when justice so requires.” Generally, the decision whether to grant a party leave to amend the pleadings is a matter left to the discretion of the district court. Orix Credit All., Inc. v. Taylor Mach. Works, Inc., 125 F.3d 468, 480 (7th Cir. 1997). A court should allow amendment of a pleading except where there

is undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by allowance of the amendment, or futility of the amendment. Bausch v. Stryker Corp., 630 F.3d 546, 562 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Airborne Beepers & Video, Inc. v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 449 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2007). An amendment is futile if it would not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Reilly v. Will Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 142 F.4th 924, 930 (7th Cir. 2025) (applying Rule 12(b)(6) standard in futility assessment); Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp. v. Lease Resol. Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1085 (7th Cir. 1997), or a motion for summary judgment, Bethany Pharmacal Co. v. QVC, Inc., 241 F.3d 854, 861 (7th Cir. 2001). The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment is futile. Plaintiffs attempt to assert

claims against the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the acts of its agents and employees. But a municipality, such as the City, may not be held vicariously liable for actions of its employees under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). It may only be liable for its own actions as a municipality. Id. at 690–92. Since Plaintiffs attempt to hold the City liable under a theory of respondeat superior, they fail to state a claim against the City. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Scott Howder, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Uriah Howder, deceased, and Drenna Deisher, as Guardian of the Estate of Ciarra Bruce, a minor’s Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 24). Plaintiffs shall have up

2 to and including January 21, 2026, to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20).

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 14, 2026

s/ J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SCOTT HOWDER, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Uriah Howder, deceased, and DREMA DEISHER, as Guardian of the Estate of Ciarra Bruce, a minor, Case No. 25-cv-01897-JPG Plaintiffs,

v.

MOUNT CARMEL POLICE DEPARTMENT, and SERGEANT GILBERT SANTOS-ASTORGA,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs Scott Howder, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Uriah Howder, deceased, and Drenna Deisher, as Guardian of the Estate of Ciarra Bruce, a minor’s Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 24). Plaintiffs’ ask the Court for leave to amend their complaint to correct the name of Defendant Sergeant Gilbert Santos-Astorga’s employer from the Mount Carmel Police Department to the City of Mount Carmel (“the City”). In the alternative, they request an extension of seven (7) days to file a response to Defendant Mount Carmel Police Department’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20). Defendants consented to Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendments to pleadings before trial. Since Plaintiffs’ motion seeks leave to amend their complaint to add a new party to the case, leave of court is required. Williams v. United States Postal Serv., 873 F.2d 1069, 1072 n.2 (7th Cir. 1989); Ed Miniat, Inc. v. Globe Life Ins. Grp., Inc., 805 F.2d 732, 736 (7th Cir. 1986); La Batt v. Twomey, 513 F.2d 641, 651 n.9 (7th Cir. 1975); see FED. R. CIV. P. 21 (stating in pertinent part, “[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party). Rule 15(a) instructs courts to “freely give leave when justice so requires.” Generally, the decision whether to grant a party leave to amend the pleadings is a matter left to the discretion of the district court. Orix Credit All., Inc. v. Taylor Mach. Works, Inc., 125 F.3d 468, 480 (7th Cir. 1997). A court should allow amendment of a pleading except where there

is undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by allowance of the amendment, or futility of the amendment. Bausch v. Stryker Corp., 630 F.3d 546, 562 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Airborne Beepers & Video, Inc. v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 449 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2007). An amendment is futile if it would not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Reilly v. Will Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 142 F.4th 924, 930 (7th Cir. 2025) (applying Rule 12(b)(6) standard in futility assessment); Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp. v. Lease Resol. Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1085 (7th Cir. 1997), or a motion for summary judgment, Bethany Pharmacal Co. v. QVC, Inc., 241 F.3d 854, 861 (7th Cir. 2001). The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment is futile. Plaintiffs attempt to assert

claims against the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the acts of its agents and employees. But a municipality, such as the City, may not be held vicariously liable for actions of its employees under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). It may only be liable for its own actions as a municipality. Id. at 690–92. Since Plaintiffs attempt to hold the City liable under a theory of respondeat superior, they fail to state a claim against the City. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Scott Howder, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Uriah Howder, deceased, and Drenna Deisher, as Guardian of the Estate of Ciarra Bruce, a minor’s Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 24). Plaintiffs shall have up

2 to and including January 21, 2026, to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20).

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 14, 2026

s/ J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Scott Howder, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Uriah Howder, deceased, and Drema Deisher, as Guardian of the Estate of Ciarra Bruce, a minor v. Mount Carmel Police Department, and Sergeant Gilbert Santos-Astorga, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-howder-as-independent-administrator-of-the-estate-of-uriah-howder-ilsd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack