United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Kane Yvette Kane, District Judge.
Kareem Hassan Milhouse (“Plaintiff”), an inmate
currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary at
McCreary, Pine Knot, Kentucky (“USP-McCreary”),
filed this Bivens-styled action on October 10, 2014.
(Doc. No. 1.) On March 21, 2016, the Court denied
Plaintiff's seventh motion for a preliminary injunction
in this matter. (Doc. No. 70.) Plaintiff appealed that Order
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
on April 5, 2016. (Doc. No. 75.) Subsequently, on April 19,
2016, this Court issued an Order staying this matter pending
the outcome of Plaintiff's appeal. (Doc. No. 87.) In its
April 19, 2016 Order, this Court specifically provided that
this matter was stayed other than with respect to the filing
of Defendants' answer or other responsive pleading.
(Id.) The Order stated that if “Defendants
file a dispositive motion in lieu of an answer, the
Defendants['] supporting brief, statement of facts, etc.,
will be due within 45 days of the date the Court of Appeals
issues its decision.” Id. On May 4, 2016,
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in lieu of an
answer. (Doc. No. 89.)
January 22, 2018, the Third Circuit affirmed this Court's
March 21, 2016 denial of Plaintiff's motion for a
preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 125.) Accordingly,
Defendants' supporting brief and statement of facts were
due on or before March 8, 2018. On March 20, 2018, the Court
issued an Order directing Defendants to file their brief and
statement of facts in accordance with Local Rule 56.1 within
ten days of said Order. (Doc. No. 127.) Defendants filed
their brief in support and statement of facts on March 23,
2018. (Doc. Nos. 128, 129.) On April 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed
a motion for an extension of time to file a brief in
opposition (Doc. No. 130), a motion to reinstate docket
numbers 64, 82, 93, and 94 (Doc. No. 131), and a brief in
support of his motion to reinstate (Doc. No. 132).
requests that this Court reinstate his: (1) motion to
amend/supplement his complaint to add additional claims
against Defendants and also to add additional Defendants and
new claims (Doc. No. 64); (2) brief in support of his motion
to amend/supplement his complaint (Doc. No. 82); (3) second
motion to amend/supplement his complaint (Doc. No. 93); and
(4) brief in support of his second motion to amend/supplement
his complaint (Doc. No. 94). This Court deemed
Plaintiff's motion to amend/supplement his complaint
(Doc. No. 64), withdrawn due to Plaintiff's failure to
file a supporting brief pursuant to Local Rule 7.5 (Doc. No.
74). The Court denied Plaintiff's second motion to
amend/supplement (Doc. No. 93), as Plaintiff had previously
filed an appeal with the Third Circuit, and that appeal was
currently pending. (Doc. No. 99.)
motion to reinstate necessitates that the Court analyze his
motion to amend/supplement. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15 states that “[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 when the justice so
requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Whether to grant or deny
such a motion is within the district court's discretion.
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). A court
may deny a motion for leave to amend if “(1) the moving
party has demonstrated undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory
motives, (2) the amendment would be futile, or (3) the
amendment would prejudice the other party.” Fraser
v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 352 F.3d 107, 116 (3d Cir.
2003). Mere delay will not warrant the denial of a motion for
leave to amend “absent a concomitant showing of undue
prejudice or bad faith.” Zygmuntowicz v.
Hospitality Invs., Inc., 151 F.R.D. 53, 55 (E.D. Pa.
1993). Prejudice has been defined as “undue difficulty
in prosecuting a position as a result of a change in tactics
or theories.” Id.
an application for leave to file a supplemental pleading,
like an application for leave to amend a complaint, is
considered within the sound discretion of the trial court.
Bates v. Western Elec., 420 F.Supp. 521, 525 (E.D.
Pa. 1976). Factors to be considered by the Court include
whether supplementation will promote the economic and speedy
disposition of the entire controversy, whether
supplementation will unnecessarily delay or inconvenience the
resolution of the matter, and whether supplementation will
prejudice the rights of the parties to the action.
Plaintiff's Motion to Reinstate
Court finds difficulty in considering Plaintiff's brief
in support of his motion to reinstate (Doc. No. 132), as
anything resembling a proper brief in support of his motion.
See Local Rule 7.8 (providing that “[b]riefs
shall contain complete citations of all authorities relied
upon”). Plaintiff's brief contains five sentences
setting forth a brief procedural history of the case and two
sentences requesting that this Court reinstate Docket Numbers
64, 82, 93, and 94. (Doc. No. 132.) Accordingly, it contains
no factual or legal argument or citations in support of his
motion. While the Court could deem Plaintiff's motion to
reinstate withdrawn, it will deny the motion to reinstate on
the merits of the motion.
seeks to reinstate a previous motion to supplement and amend
his complaint by asserting additional claims against the
named Defendants, and setting forth additional Defendants and
claims against the proposed new Defendants. (Doc. No. 64.)
However, upon careful consideration of the factors outlined
above regarding both amendments to a complaint and
supplements to a complaint, the Court is constrained to deny
the motion to reinstate, as allowing Plaintiff to amend or
supplement his complaint at this stage of the instant
litigation would not promote the interests of justice in the
disposition of the case, would cause undue delay, and would
unfairly prejudice Defendants.
in reviewing Plaintiff's proposed amended/supplemental
complaint (Doc. No. 64 at 2-3), the claims Plaintiff wishes
to add against the named Defendants and the proposed
Defendants involve a purported failure to provide or treat a
back/spine condition experienced by Plaintiff. (Id.)
This claim is vastly different than the conduct complained of
in Plaintiff's instant complaint. (Id.)
Additionally, the proposed amended/supplemented incidents
appear to have occurred beginning in 2010, four years prior
to the date that Plaintiff filed the instant complaint and
more than six years prior to the date Plaintiff filed his
motion to amend/supplement. (Id.) To the extent that
Plaintiff argues that the amendments relate back pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), the Court rejects such
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) provides that “[a]n
amendment to a pleading relates back to the date ...