United States District Court, D. Maine
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend
and Incorporate certain individuals or entities as parties to
this action. (ECF No. 160.) Through the motion, Plaintiff
apparently seeks to join other medical personnel and entities
in this action. The Court denies Plaintiff's motion.
15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a
litigant to amend a pleading “as a matter of
course” subject to certain time constraints. However,
when a party seeks to amend a complaint more than 21 days
after the filing of a responsive pleading, the other
party's consent or leave of court is required in order to
amend the complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). In such a case,
the court is to grant leave to amend “freely”
when “justice so requires.” Id.; see
also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (“In
the absence of any apparent or declared reason-such as 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, futility of amendment,
etc.-the leave sought should, as the rules require, be
standard is elevated when the motion to amend is filed after
the court's scheduling order deadline for amendment of
pleadings. A motion to amend that is filed beyond the
deadline established in a scheduling order requires an
amendment of the scheduling order. To obtain an amendment of
the scheduling order, a party must demonstrate good cause.
Johnson v. Spencer Press of Maine, Inc., 211 F.R.D.
27, 30 (D. Me. 2002); El-Hajj v. Fortis Benefits Ins.
Co., 156 F.Supp.2d 27, 34 (D. Me. 2001); Fed.R.Civ.P.
court's decision on good cause “focuses on the
diligence (or lack thereof) of the moving party more than it
does on any prejudice to the party-opponent.” Steir
v. Girl Scouts of the USA, 383 F.3d 7, 12 (1st Cir.
2004). “Particularly disfavored are motions to amend
whose timing prejudices the opposing party by
‘requiring a re-opening of discovery with additional
costs, a significant postponement of the trial, and a likely
major alteration in trial tactics and strategy.'”
Id. (quoting Acosta-Mestre v. Hilton Int'l
of P.R., Inc., 156 F.3d 49, 52 (1st Cir. 1998)).
Ultimately, a court has discretion whether to grant a motion
to amend, and that discretion should be exercised on the
basis of the particular facts and circumstances of the case.
the deadline for the amendment of pleadings expired on
February 22, 2016. Plaintiff has offered no explanation for
the significant delay in his request to join the additional
parties. Plaintiff thus has failed to demonstrate good cause
to amend the complaint at this stage of the proceedings.
Plaintiff has not asserted any facts from which the Court
could determine that Plaintiff has an actionable claim
against any of the proposed parties. When a plaintiff files a
motion to amend in response to a motion to dismiss, the Court
may deny the motion to amend, in whole or in part, if the
proposed amendment would be futile. Glassman v.
Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir. 1996).
A “futile” amendment is one that “would
fail to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted.” Id. In other words, “if the
proposed amendment would be futile because, as thus amended,
the complaint still fails to state a claim, the district
court acts within its discretion in denying the motion to
amend.” Boston & Me. Corp. v. Hampton, 987
F.2d 855, 868 (1st Cir. 1993). Because Plaintiff has failed
to assert any facts that would support a claim against the
proposed parties, on the current record, the amendment would
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court denies
Plaintiff's motion to amend.
objections to this Order shall be filed in accordance with
 Plaintiff identifies some of the
individuals and entities in his original motion (ECF No. 160)
and some in his reply in support of his ...