Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hart v. County of Hillsdale

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

March 31, 2017

ANTHONY HART, Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF HILLSDALE, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [#43]

          HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD, JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Defendants Michigan State Police Analysts Melissa Marinoff and Marci Kelley (the “State Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss based on qualified immunity and failure to state a claim. After the Motion to Dismiss was filed, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint [#43]. The State Defendants filed a response, and most of the other Defendants filed a concurrence in the State Defendants' response. Plaintiff did not file a reply to the State Defendants' response. Defendant Watch Systems, L.L.C. (“Watch”) also filed a response, asserting that the proposed Second Amended Complaint would be futile as to Watch because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Watch. Plaintiff has replied to Watch's response, stating that the response is irrelevant because none of the allegations related to Watch have been amended and the Court has personal jurisdiction over Watch. A hearing on the Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint was held on September 14, 2016.

         For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint insofar as it pertains to the State Defendants. The Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint against the other Defendants, including Watch.

         II. PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

         In essence, Plaintiff seeks to amend his Amended Complaint to allege that the State Defendants: (1) “deliberately, recklessly, and unreasonably” caused Plaintiff to be arrested and maliciously prosecuted, see, e.g., Proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Paragraphs 3, 38, 71; and (2) failed to properly maintain the Michigan Sex Offenders Registry (“SOR”) accurately as they were required to do (by ensuring it was reliable and not likely to result in arrest or criminal prosecution of persons who were not subject to its requirement), see, e.g., SAC, Paragraphs 22, 33, 35, 37, 69, 70 of the SAC. In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff only generally alleged that the State Defendants caused things to happen, with no allegation of anything more than mistake or error, and Plaintiff did not specify that the State Defendants were required to perform in a certain manner.

         III. APPLICABLE LAW & ANALYSIS

         A. Rule 15(a)

         In a case where a responsive pleading has been filed, a party may amend its pleading only with the written consent of the opposing party or by leave of the Court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Defendants do not concur in Plaintiff's motion, so it is within the Court's discretion whether to grant Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2), “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” The factors a court is to consider when determining whether to permit a plaintiff to file an amended complaint are:

(1) the delay in filing the motion,
(2) the lack of notice to the other party,
(3) bad faith by the moving party,
(4) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.