Smith v. Hamm (DEATH PENALTY)

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

KENNETH EUGENE SMITH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:22-cv-497-RAH ) [WO] JOHN Q. HAMM, Commissioner, ) Alabama Department of Corrections, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff Kenneth Eugene Smith’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 63.) Smith seeks to add new factual allegations and claims against the Defendants related to their unsuccessful attempt to execute Smith by lethal injection on November 17, 2022. The Defendants have filed a response in opposition. (Doc. 66.) The motion is ripe for review. Where, as here, Smith has previously amended his complaint, subsequent amendments are allowed only with the Defendants’ consent or the Court’s leave. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). “The decision whether to grant leave to amend is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Shipner v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 868 F.2d 401, 406 (11th Cir. 1989). Rule 15 directs that the Court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). Thus, Rule 15’s policy “in liberally permitting amendments to facilitate determination of claims on the merits circumscribes the exercise of the district court’s discretion; thus, unless a

substantial reason exists to deny leave to amend, the discretion of the district court is not broad enough to permit denial.” Shipner, 868 F.2d at 407. Reasons that may counsel against granting leave include “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on

the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The Defendants have not successfully demonstrated that Smith’s proposed

amendment would be futile, nor have they shown any other substantial reason to deny leave to amend at this stage. Smith presents a new set of facts and claims based on intervening events—his attempted execution—which merit consideration by the

Court. Consequently, Smith’s Motion for Leave is due to be granted. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Smith’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 63) is GRANTED. Smith shall file the Second Amended Complaint as a separate

docket entry as soon as possible but no later than December 8, 2022. 2. Smith’s Motion for Leave to File Reply to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 68) is

DENIED as moot. DONE, on this the 6th day of December, 2022.

/s/ R. Austin Huffaker, Jr. R. AUSTIN HUFFAKER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE