UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD DAVIS,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-CV-14552-DT

vs.

 DISTRICT JUDGE MARIANNE O. BATTANI

GLADWIN, COUNTY OF, MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

et. al,

Defendants.

________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

AND

STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Amendment (docket no. 31)

and Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena (docket no. 40). Plaintiff seeks to amend his civil rights

Complaint to add three defendants: (1) jail nurse Beth Booth; (2) manager of jail services Victor

Kuhlman; and (3) jail physician Dr. Richard Bratton. (Id.). Defendants have filed briefs opposing

Plaintiff’s motion. (Docket nos. 34, 39). Plaintiff also seeks to have a subpoena quashed or

modified. (Docket no. 40). Defendants have not yet responded to this motion. All pretrial matters

have been referred to the undersigned for decision. (Docket no. 4). The Court dispenses with oral

argument on Plaintiff’s motions. Plaintiff’s motions are now ready for ruling.

1. Motion to Amend Complaint

In his Complaint, Plaintiff complains of excessive force being used against him during his

arrest on February 1, 2008. (Docket no. 1). He also alleges that the police and prosecutors

fabricated evidence against him and committed perjury. (Id.). Jail nurses allegedly improperly

2:08-cv-14552-MOB-MKM Doc # 42 Filed 04/03/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 264
released information on his medical condition. Plaintiff also included a very general claim of

“altered medical records” against all Defendant. (Id.). Plaintiff now wishes to add these three

persons as defendants. The allegations against Nurse Booth and Dr. Bratton are that Plaintiff asked

to see “community mental health,” and this did not happen. The allegation against jail services

manager Kuhlman is that he responded to a letter from Plaintiff stating that the jail services section

does not investigate allegations of criminal acts. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Nurse Booth altered

medical records because the records show that Plaintiff talked to mental health, but Plaintiff states

that he did not do so.

Rule 15(a) provides that a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course prior to

service of a responsive pleading or within twenty days of serving its pleading if no responsive

pleading is required. Otherwise, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s

written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The decision whether to permit amendment is committed to the discretion

of the trial court. Lucas v. Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc., 953 F.2d 644 (6th Cir. 1992)

(unpublished). A motion to amend may be denied when the amendment would be futile. Haverstick

Enters., Inc. v. Financial Fed. Credit, Inc., 32 F.3d 989, 995-96 (6th Cir. 1994). 

Defendants have already filed Answers to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Docket nos. 11, 21, 22). 

Plaintiff has not shown that he received written consent of the opposing party to amend his

Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff must be granted leave by this Court before he may file an amended

complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The bulk of Plaintiff’s Complaint concerns events of a different

time and nature from the allegations in Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. The allegations in Plaintiff’s

motion are vague and non-specific. Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may

-2-

2:08-cv-14552-MOB-MKM Doc # 42 Filed 04/03/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 265
be granted against the proposed defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied because

the proposed amendments are futile, and justice does not require the amendments. See Haverstick,

32 F.3d at 995-96.

2. Motion to Quash Subpoena

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena fails to recite verbatim the substance of the

subpoena, and a copy of the subpoena is not attached to the motion. (Docket no. 40). Plaintiff states

that the subpoena pertains to medical or mental information, but the Court cannot rule on the motion

with such a general description of the information requested by the subpoena. See E.D. Mich. LR

37.2 (Form of Discovery Motions) (requiring verbatim recitation of discovery request or copy of

discovery document). Plaintiff must re-file his motion and either recite the substance of the

subpoena verbatim or include a copy of the subpoena with his motion. Plaintiff’s present motion

will be stricken from the record and not be further considered by the Court. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (docket no.

31) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena (docket

no. 40) is STRICKEN from the record. 

-3-

2:08-cv-14552-MOB-MKM Doc # 42 Filed 04/03/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 266
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties have a period of ten days from the date of

this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible

under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

Dated: April 03, 2009 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

MONA K. MAJZOUB

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this Opinion and Order was served upon Richard Davis

and Counsel of Record on this date.

Dated: April 03, 2009 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

Courtroom Deputy

-4-

2:08-cv-14552-MOB-MKM Doc # 42 Filed 04/03/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 267