Warzek v. Onyeje

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BE DENIED [ECF NO.

         Plaintiff Michael R. Warzek is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to add Defendant Dr. Renee Kanan, filed on October 22, 2019.

         I.

         RELEVANT HISTORY

         This action is proceeding against Defendants M. Conanan, O. Onyeje, and Charles E. Young for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.

         On August 2, 2018, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint.

         On August 7, 2018, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order.

         On January 7, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies. Plaintiff filed an opposition on February 5, 2019, and Defendants filed a reply and objections on February 11, 2019. On March 12, 2019, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted, and Plaintiff's claim relating to the denial of a medical chrono be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies. Plaintiff filed objections on April 15, 2019. On July 12, 2019, the Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full and Plaintiff's claim relating to the denial of a medical chrono was dismissed, without prejudice.

         On March 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which was lodged by the Court. However, Plaintiff did not file a motion to amend the complaint until April 15, 2019, along with another copy of the proposed second amended complaint which was lodged. Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion to amend on May 6, 2019. On May 24, 2019, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations recommending Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint be denied. (ECF No. 46.) The Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full on August 23, 2019. (ECF No. 52.)

         As previously stated, on October 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to add Defendant Dr. Renee Kanan. Defendants filed an opposition on October 31, 2019. Plaintiff did not file a reply and the time to do so has expired. Local Rule 230(1).

         II.

         DISCUSSION

         Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course twenty-one days after serving, or if a response was filed, within twenty-one days after service of the response. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1). Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).

         Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires.'” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)). However, courts “need not grant leave to amend where the amendment: (1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in the litigation; or (4) is futile.” AmerisourceBergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 951. Relevant to the futility factor, a plaintiff may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). The burden to demonstrate prejudice falls upon the party opposing the amendment. DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining three factors, a presumption exists under Rule ...