United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
DOUGLAS A. GUILMETTE, Plaintiff,
N. HENRY, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
A. Guilmette, a prisoner without a lawyer, has alleged that,
on January 7, 2016, Sgt. N. Henry used excessive force
against him, resulting in a shoulder injury. Now, nearly
three and a half years later, Guilmette seeks leave to amend
his complaint to add additional defendants, although it is
unclear exactly who he wants to add. His motion to amend (ECF
111) indicates he wishes to add “the regional medical
director of Corizon, Wexford, and I.D.O.C. Supt. Ron
Neal” as defendants. In contrast, Guilmette's
motion to supplement his motion to amend (ECF 115) indicates
he wishes to add “Corizon (Regional Director of Health
Care) and Wexford.” There is no mention of Ron Neal.
Guilmette seeks to amend his complaint because, during the
course of discovery, he learned that on July 29, 2016, Dr.
Joseph Thompson approved a treatment plan that included
physical therapy and a surgical consultation. Despite that
plan, Guilmette never received either physical therapy or a
surgical consultation. Based on these allegations, Guilmette
alleges that the Regional Director of Corizon, Wexford, and
Ron Neal were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
initial matter, Guilmette has not attached a proposed amended
complaint to either his motion to amend or his supplement to
that motion. (ECF 111; ECF 115.) N.D. Ind. L.R. 15-1 requires
that a motion to amend be accompanied by “the original
signed proposed amendment as an attachment.”
aside Guilmette's failure to tender a proposed amended
complaint, at this stage of the proceedings, “a party
may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's
written consent or the court's leave.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(2). When justice requires it, leave should be freely
given. Id. “Reasons for finding that leave
should not be granted include 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, [and] futility of amendment.” Airborne
Beepers & Video, Inc. v. AT & T Mobility LLC,
499 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2007).
the attempt to amend comes nearly three and a half years
after the incident, and just shy of three years after Dr.
Thompson approved the treatment plan. Furthermore, Guilmette
learned of the treatment plan in September of 2018 - more
than eight months before he sought leave to amend his
complaint. Thus, there has been undue delay in this case.
Guilmette contends otherwise, permitting him to amend at this
late hour will likely result in a substantial delay in the
resolution of his claims against N. Henry - claims that have
now been pending since October of 2016. Thus, the defendant
may be prejudiced by the proposed amendment.
allowing the proposed amendments would be futile. To the
extent that Guilmette wishes to add Corizon or Wexford as
defendants, he has not alleged facts that state a claim. A
private company performing a governmental function can be
held liable to the same extent as a municipal entity under
Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New
York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). See Rice v. Corr. Med.
Servs., 675 F.3d 650, 675 (7th Cir. 2012)(Monell
framework applies to private company providing medical care
at correctional facility). In other words, a private company
performing a governmental function cannot be held liable for
damages under § 1983 unless a policy or custom caused
the alleged constitutional violation. Guilmette has not
alleged that his constitutional rights were violated due to a
policy or custom or either Corizon or Wexford, and he
therefore could not state a claim against them.
extent that Guilmette seeks to add Ron Neal or the regional
medical directors of either Corizon or Wexford, he likewise
has not alleged facts that state a claim. Guilmette has not
alleged that Neal or either of the regional medical directors
were personally involved in making decisions regarding his
medical care. Section 1983 “liability depends on each
defendant's knowledge and actions, not on the knowledge
or actions of persons they supervise.” Burks v.
Raemisch , 555 F.3d 592, 594 (7th Cir. 2009).
“[P]ublic employees are responsible for their own
misdeeds but not for anyone else's.” Id.
at 596. The doctrine of respondeat superior, which
allows an employer to be held liable for subordinates'
actions in some types of cases, has no application to §
1983 actions. Moore v. State of Indiana, 999 F.2d
1125, 1129 (7th Cir. 1993). In the absence of factual
assertions that state a claim, it would be futile to permit
Guilmette to amend.
Guilmette seeks to amend his complaint after the statute of
limitations has expired, and amendment should therefore be
granted only if the complaint relates back to the original
complaint. While Guilmette asserts that this amendment would
relate back, he is mistaken. Guilmette has not alleged that
Ron Neal, Corizon's Regional Medical Director, or Wexford
were on notice of his claim prior to the expiration of the
statute of limitations. See Moore v. Indiana, 999
F.2d 1125, 1130-31 (7th Cir. 1993) (where plaintiff did not
request leave to amend his complaint to add defendants until
after the statute of limitations had expired and the
defendants to be added were not on notice of the claim
against them, the amended complaint did not relate back to
the original complaint.) Because nothing in the record of
this case suggests that Guilmette placed Ron Neal,
Corizon's Regional Medical Director, or Wexford on notice
of his claim against them prior to the expiration of the
statute of limitations, the amendment would not relate back
and any attempt to amend would be futile.
these reasons, the court:
DENIES Douglas A. Guilmette's motion seeking leave to
amend his complaint (ECF 111); and
DENIES Douglas A. Guilmette's motion to supplement his
motion seeking ...