United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
November 29, 2005.
CRAIG MOSS, Plaintiff
GEORGE MILLER, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: SYLVIA RAMBO, Senior District Judge
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
The history of this Memorandum and Order is as follows. Craig
Moss, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution-Greene in
Waynesburg, Pennsylvania, filed this civil rights complaint
pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 8,
2003. Upon review, the court concluded that the forty-seven (47)
page, two hundred seventy-three (273) paragraph complaint
contained disparate and unrelated claims, and it did not comply
with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20.
Consequently, Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended
complaint complying with Rule 20.
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
narrowed the focus of his claim, alleging that from March 6, 2002
to May 10, 2002 while housed at the Retreat State Correctional
Institution in Hunlock Creek, Pennsylvania, he was frequently exposed to raw sewage when the toilet in his cell
backed up and overflowed. Presently pending is Plaintiff's motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint (Doc. 77), to join a
new defendant, George Miller, related to allegations of a shower
restriction allegedly imposed by Miller. The motion has been
briefed and it is ripe for disposition.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 states, in relevant part: "A
party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course
at any time before a responsive pleading is served. . . .
Otherwise a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of
court . . . and leave shall be freely given if justice so
requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Deciding whether to grant leave
is within the discretion of the court and should be exercised
within the context of the liberal pleading rules. See Berkshire
Fashions, Inc. v. M.V. Hakusan II, 954 F.2d 874, 886 (3d Cir.
1992). Nevertheless, the proposed amendment will be denied.
Initially, the court notes that Plaintiff has failed to attach
a copy of the proposed amended complaint, as required by Local
Rule 15.1. M.D. Pa. L.R. 15.1. Further, Plaintiff seeks to add a
defendant nearly two years after the first amended complaint was
filed, without explaining the reason for the inordinate delay.
Finally, the proposed amendment would again conflict with the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, since the new
allegations do not appear to arise out of the same transaction or occurrences as the claim set forth in the first
In accordance with the foregoing discussion, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint (Doc. 77) is DENIED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.