The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence E. Kahn, U.S. District Judge
The Clerk has sent to the Court a Motion to Amend the Complaint (Dkt. No. 30) and a Motion for Protection (Dkt. No. 31) filed by Edward Alexander ("Plaintiff" or "Alexander"). Defendants have opposed both Motions (Dkt. Nos. 32 and 35).
By way of background, this action was filed on November 9, 2004. The Complaint was ordered served on November 16, 2004. See November 2004 Order (Dkt. No. 4). Defendants' Answer was filed on June 8, 2005. Answer (Dkt. No. 17). On May 31, 2006, Magistrate Judge DiBianco issued an Order that extended the nondispositive motion filing deadline to July 3, 2006 for the sole purpose of permitting Plaintiff to identify and name the John Doe Defendant who was named in the original Complaint. See May 2006 Order (Dkt. No. 29). Thereafter, on June 9, 2006, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Amend that is pending before this Court. Motion to Amend (Dkt. No. 30). On June 23, 2006, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Protection. See Motion for Protection (Dkt. No. 31). Defendants filed their opposition to the Motion to Amend on July 10, 2006. Defts' Opp. to Amend. (Dkt No. 32). On August 3, 2006 Defendants filed the opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Protection. Defts' Opp. to Protect. (Dkt. No. 35). On August 15, 2006, Judge DiBianco stayed the pretrial deadlines pending resolution of the Motion to Amend. See August 2006 Order (Dkt. No. 37).
A Motion to Amend a pleading is governed by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 15(a) states that leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Manson v. Stacescu, 11 F.3rd 1127, 1133 (2d Cir. 1993). The Supreme Court has stated:
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... be "freely given."
Annexed to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is a proposed Amended Complaint. A review of that document reveals that it sets forth the identical factual allegations as were set forth in the original Complaint. The only difference is that "Sergeant Mitchell" has now been named in place of "John Doe." Thus, Plaintiff does not attempt to expand the factual allegations or claims asserted in this action.
Defendants oppose this Motion alleging Plaintiff's failure to seek
extension of the pretrial deadlines, and also alleging undue delay.
However, as noted above, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension to
July 3, 2006 for the sole purpose of identifying the John Doe
Defendant and filing a Motion to add the individual to this action.
See May 2006 Order (Dkt. No. 29). With respect to the issue of delay,
the Court notes that Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff's
discovery demands that were directed at uncovering the identify of the
Doe Defendant until November 2005, after Plaintiff attempted to bring
a Motion to Compel. That response was partial, according to counsel's
letter dated November 9, 2005. See Defts' Opp. to Amend. (Dkt. No.
C). It is not clear from either set of motion papers when this
discovery demand was fully complied with by Defendants. Regardless,
this does not appear to be a case of undue delay, nor is there any
indication of dilatory conduct on behalf of Plaintiff.*fn1
The Court is also strained to find the prejudice that
Defendants attempt to argue in light of the fact that the factual
allegations and legal claims have not changed since the filing of the
Original Complaint. Such an argument would be more persuasive if
Plaintiff was attempting to introduce new facts and/or claims to this
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint will be granted.
III. Motion for Protection
The standard a Court must utilize in considering whether to grant a request for injunctive relief is well-settled in this Circuit. As the Second Circuit noted in Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1992), the movant "must show (1) irreparable harm and (2) either (a) likelihood of success on the merits or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party seeking injunctive relief." Id. at 77 (affirming district court's denial of inmate's request for preliminary injunction). See alsoRoucchio v. LeFevre, 850 F. Supp. 143, 144 (N.D.N.Y. 1994) (McAvoy, C.J.) (adopting Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge DiBianco that denied inmate's request for injunctive relief).
Plaintiff seeks an Order directing that he be moved from Auburn Correctional Facility to a facility located within the Southern District of New York. See Motion for Protection (Dkt. No. 31). The basis for the relief are allegations of Defendants having repeatedly retaliated against the Plaintiff in unspecified ways, repeated denial of Plaintiff's meals, verbal harassment and threats, a June 2, 2006 attack on Plaintiff by Defendant Whitney, and denial of showers. See id. Other than the alleged incident with Whitney, Plaintiff has offered no ...