United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
G. WILKERSON United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 158). For the
reasons set forth below, the Motion is
Robert Akers, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), filed this
lawsuit as a pro se litigant on September 15, 2014
alleging his constitutional rights had been violated while he
was incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”). Plaintiff's complaint was
screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and he was
allowed to proceed on the following claims:
Count One: Eight Amendment deliberate indifference claim
against Defendants Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Shearing,
Moldenhauer, and Nwaobasi for failing to provide necessary
medical treatment for Plaintiff's painful inguinal
Count Two: Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Ziegler,
Cartwright, and Shirtz for ordering Plaintiff to walk across
the ice-covered yard with deliberate indifference to a known,
obvious, and substantial risk of serious bodily harm that
could result from a fall.
February 5, 2016, the Court appointed attorney Gary L. Payne
to represent Plaintiff in this matter. Plaintiff, through
counsel, filed the motion to amend now before the Court on
November 4, 2016. Discovery closed on December 16, 2016 and
the dispositive motion deadline was stayed pending a ruling
on the motion to amend.
motion to amend, Plaintiff seeks leave to bring a deliberate
indifference claim against Defendants for their alleged
failure to diagnose and treat Plaintiff's serious back
injury that resulted from his fall on January 6, 2014.
Plaintiff asserts that his amendment is neither unduly
delayed, nor brought in bad faith or with dilatory motive.
object to Plaintiff's motion arguing that it is untimely,
having been filed just one month prior to the close of
discovery in this matter and futile insofar as Plaintiff
admittedly failed to grieve this issue prior to seeking leave
to amend. Defendants also point out that Plaintiff is not
without recourse for his back injury as he is still at
liberty to file a separate lawsuit if he so chooses.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a party
may amend a pleading, and that a leave to amend should be
freely given when justice so requires “courts in their
sound discretion may deny a proposed amendment if the moving
party has unduly delayed in filing the motion, if the
opposing party would suffer undue prejudice, or if the
pleading is futile.” Soltys v. Costello, 520
F.3d 737, 743 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Campania Mgmt. Co.
v. Rooks, Pitts & Poust, 290 F.3d 843, 848-49 (7th
Cir. 2002)). Moreover, a complaint must provide a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). To state a cognizable claim, the complaint must
provide enough detail to give defendants fair notice of the
nature of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests and
to show that relief is plausible. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554-56 (2007). A complaint is
plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
light of the standards set forth in Twombly and
Iqbal, Plaintiff's motion to amend must be
denied. Plaintiff failed to allege, with any specificity, the
actions undertaken by each defendant that form the basis of
his deliberate indifference claim. Indeed, Plaintiff makes no
mention of any particular defendant in his proposed
amendment. Accordingly, there is no factual content for the
Court to draw an inference that any defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged. Moreover, the Court finds that
allowing Plaintiff leave to amend at this late date would
prejudice defendants as it would necessarily require
additional discovery and further delay a case that was
pending more than two years prior to Plaintiff seeking leave
to add this additional claim. The Court further acknowledges
the apparent futility of allowing Plaintiff leave to amend
due to his admission that he failed to address his complaints
at the institutional level via the administrative grievance
process. For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave
to Amend (Doc. 158) is DENIED.
regard to the schedule in this matter, the stay on the filing
of dispositive motions is lifted and the ...