UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
October 6, 2006
ERIC FLOYD, PLAINTIFF
JEFFREY A. BEARD, ET AL., DEFENDANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 6th day of October, 2006, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion (Doc. 89) for leave to file a second amended complaint to add further allegations of religious discrimination (see Doc. 89, Ex. A ¶¶ 51-58), and it appearing that the facts relevant to the new allegations were known to plaintiff in 2004 (see Doc. 89), that plaintiff does not offer any justification*fn1 for his delay in requesting leave to amend the complaint until August 16, 2006, see Cureton v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 252 F.3d 267, 171-73 (3d Cir. 2001) (discussing undue delay as a grounds for denying leave to amend), and that defendants would be unduly prejudiced by an amendment because the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines have lapsed (see Doc. 88), see Bechtel v. Robinson, 886 F.2d 644, 652 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing prejudice to the non-moving party as "the touchstone for the denial of an amendment"), and it further appearing that amendment would be futile because plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies for the claims he seeks to add,*fn2 see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (requiring prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies before filing claims related to prison conditions in federal court); see also Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 525 (2002) (stating that exhaustion requirement of § 1997e was intended to "afford corrections officials time and opportunity to address complaints internally" and to provide "an administrative record that clarifies the contours of the controversy"), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to file a second amended complaint (Doc. 89) is DENIED.