Opinion ID: 45157
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion to Add Briody as a Defendant

Text: Finally, Lavender contends that the district court erred by concluding that any amendment to the complaint would be futile because there was no undue delay, bad faith , or dilatory motive in the request to amend. Lavender further contends that Briody was a necessary party because, had Briody implemented policies requiring segregation, the attack would not have occurred. We review the denial of a motion to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion. Green Leaf Nursery v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 341 F.3d 1292, 1300 (11th Cir. 2003). Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to amend a pleading once as a matter of course “ at any time before a responsive pleading is served.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). “If the case has more than one defendant, and not all have filed responsive pleadings, the plaintiff may amend the complaint as a matter of course with regard to those defendants that have yet to answer.” Brewer-Giorgio v. Producers Video, Inc., 216 F.3d 1281, 1284 (11th Cir. 2000). But other than the circumstances in which the plaintiff may amend as a matter of course, a party may amend his pleading only “by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). District courts should 9 generously allow amendments even when the plaintiff does not have the right to amend the complaint. Rosen v. TRW, Inc., 979 F.2d 191, 194 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)). But a motion to amend may be denied on numerous grounds such as undue delay, undue prejudice to the defendants, and futility of the amendment. Maynard v. Bd. of Regents of Div. of Universities of Florida Dep’t of Educ., 342 F.3d 1281, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Here, Lavender moved to add Briody after Lipscomb, who was then the only defendant, had answered the complaint. Thus, Lavender did not have the right to amend as a matter of course. Moreover, the district court properly determined that the amendment was futile. First, Briody was never named as a defendant in the only remaining claim before the district court (i.e., the claim alleging deliberate indifference to a safety risk). Second, the claims against Briody involved a set of facts different from those underlying the claim against Lipscomb such that adding these claims would have unduly prejudiced Lipscomb. Third, Lavender’s claims against Briody asserted that the FCCC had not implemented policies for segregating residents, while the evidence showed that such policies were in place at the time of the attack. Finally, the allegations against Briody show, at most, that Briody acted with negligence and not the subjective awareness required for a 10 constitutional violation of deliberate indifference. Foltz, 370 F.3d at 1083; Carter, 352 F.3d at 1349-50. Thus, allowing Lavender to amend his complaint would have been futile, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the amendment.