UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FRED REEVES, #241575,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-10825

v. DISTRICT JUDGE GERALD E. ROSEN

D. SPAULDING, Food Service MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARK A. RANDON

Director, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY

GENERAL, P. ILLIG, PEGGY

OATLEY, LAMBLIN, D. WILLS, 

C. MORRISON, WOOD, STANLEY,

KORTMAN, and T. BIRKETT, Warden,

Defendants.

 /

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections

(“MDOC”), filed suit alleging a claim cognizable as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for denial of

adequate medical care. On April 22, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file an

amended complaint (Dkt. No. 3). After Defendants were served, Plaintiff filed a second motion

to amend his complaint (Dkt. No. 24). Both motions seek to add a request for monetary damages

against each defendant. The case was referred to the undersigned for all pre-trial proceedings

pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§636(b)(1)(A). For the following reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s

- 1 -

2:09-cv-10825-GER-MAR Doc # 28 Filed 08/05/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 94
second motion to amend (Dkt. No. 24) is GRANTED, and his first motion to amend (Dkt. No. 3)

is DENIED as moot. 

OPINION

When a party seeks to amend a pleading after the opposing party’s responsive pleading

has been served, it may only do so by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). When a motion for leave to amend is before the court, Rule 15(a) provides

that “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Id. However, since the decision to

grant leave to amend is not automatic, the court is to consider several factors:

Undue delay in filing, lack of notice to the opposing party, bad

faith by the moving party, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by

previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and

futility of amendment are all factors which may affect the decision. 

Delay by itself is not sufficient reason to deny a motion to amend. 

Notice and substantial prejudice to the opposing party are critical

factors in determining whether an amendment should be granted.

Head v. Jellico Hous. Auth., 870 F.2d 1117, 1123 (6th Cir. 1989) (quoting Hageman v. Signal

L.P. Gas, Inc., 486 F.2d 479, 484 (6th Cir. 1973)). 

Plaintiff’s motions to amend seek only to add compensatory and punitive damages to the

relief requested in his original complaint. Since both types of damages are permissible in §1983

cases,1

 and none of the considerations above apply at this time, IT IS ORDERED that page 36 of

Plaintiff’s original complaint be amended as indicated in Docket Number 24. 

1

See, for example, Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) (compensatory damages), and

Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983) (punitive damages).

- 2 -

2:09-cv-10825-GER-MAR Doc # 28 Filed 08/05/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 95
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s first request to amend his complaint (Dkt.

No. 3) IS DENIED as moot.

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Order through an appeal

to the district judge, but are required to act within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as

provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). See also E.D. Mich. LR

72.1(d)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir.

1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Pursuant to E.D. Mich.

LR 72.1(d)(1), a copy of the appeal is to be served upon this magistrate judge.

Within ten (10) days of service of any objecting party's timely filed appeal, the opposing

party may file a response. The response shall be not more than 20 pages in length unless by

motion and order such page limit is extended by the court. The response shall address

specifically, and in the same order raised, each issue raised in the appeal.

SO ORDERED.

S/Mark A. Randon 

Mark A. Randon

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: August 5, 2009

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the parties of record

on this date, August 5, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Melody Miles 

Case Manager

- 3 -

2:09-cv-10825-GER-MAR Doc # 28 Filed 08/05/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 96