Free Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04—cv—00407-GI\/IS Document 38-4 Filed 06/15/2006 Page1 0f4

Case 1:04—cv—00407-Gl\/IS Document 38-4 Filed 06/15/2006 Page 2 of 4
Westlaw
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 1
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 735554 (D.Del.)
(Cite as: Not Reported in F.Supp.2d)
H row inmate who was executed in May 2001. Mr.
Briefs and Other Related Documents Hackett volunteered his services as a religious
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available advisor to Muslim inmates at the DCC. In their First
United States District Court,D_ DelaWare_ Amended Complaint (D.I.3), Plaintiffs Hackett and
N_A_l_l:_ INC_, Friend of Abdullah T_ Harneen; NAIF allege that Defendants violated Mr. Hameen's
]Smaa‘Ec| H_ Hackett; and Shaltirah Hameen, First Amendment right to freedom of religion when
plaintiffs, they failed to allow Mr. Hackett to act as Mr.
y_ Hameen's religious advisor at the time of his
Robert SNYDER, Betty Burris, Larry McGuigan, exeentien
Charles Cunningham, Ron G. Hostermen, Frank
pennell, Stanley w_ Taylor, ]r_, Carl O Danherg, and On October 24, 2003, Defendants tiled a Motion For
paul Howard, Defendants_ Summary Judgment (D.I.l4). On January 27, 2004,
No_ Ciy_A_ 03,506 _]JF_ Plaintiffs Hackett and NAIF filed a Motion For
Leave To File Second Amended Complaint (D.I.23),
March 30, 2005_ in which they added Shakirah Hameen, Mr. Hameen's
widow, as a plaintiff and added a claim pursuant to
the Religious Land Use And institutionalized Person
N.A.1.F., Inc., wrrmiagrea, Delaware, prarrrrrrr, pro Act ("RLU1PA"), On
so February 9, 2004, the Court entered an Order (D.I.26)
lsmaa‘eel H. Hackett, Wilmington, Delaware, granting tne Metten Fet Leave Te File Seeend
plaintiff, pro se_ Amended Complaint. On February 23, 2004,
srrarrrarr naraeea, Philadelphia, peaaeyrvaara, Defendants med tnn instant rnntinn for
plaintifg pro se_ reconsideration of the Court's February 9 Order.
Stuart B. Drowos, of the Department of Justice for
the State of Delaware, Wilmington, Delaware, for
Defendants Robert Snyder, Betty Burris, Larry PARTIES, CONTENTIONS
McGuigan, Charles Cunningham, Ron G. Hostermen,
prank pennell, Stanley w_ Taylor, ]r_’ Carl C_ By their motion, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs'
Danbergr and paul HoWard_ Motion For Leave To File Second Amended
Complaint (D.I.23) should be denied for three
MEMORANDUM OPINION reasons: l) Plaintiffs' motion is the product of undue
delay; 2) Plaintiffs' amendment adding Ms. Hameen
FARNAN’ _l_ violates the applicable statute of limitations, and 3)
*1 Presently before the Court is the Motion To the constitutionality is questionable.
Reconsider The Court's Order Granting Plaintiffs
Motion To Amend The Complaint (D_i_27) filed by Plaintiffs respond that, because they are acting pro
State oereadams Robert Snyder, Larry McGuigan, Se. they did nnt n¤v<·= knnwlttdst Of RLUIPA nt tnt
Betty Burris, Charles Cunningham, Ron Hostermanr tllTl€S the original Complaint and the First
Frank Pennell, Stan Taylor, Carl Danberg’ and Amended Complaint. further contend
Paul Howard. For the reasons discussed, the motion RLUIPA is eensntnttenat
will be denied.
LEGAL STANDARD
BACKGROUND
"As a general rule, motions for reconsideration
Plaintiff ismaaeer naeken is the orreerer and imaa Snnnld be granted ‘Sp¤rins1y-" ’
of the North American Islamic Foundation, Inc.
("NAlF"), a national not-for-profit organization (qnettng
reeared rrr wrrmrrrgrea, Deraware. Mr. rraerea aaa )·Tnt= pnrnnse nfgrnnting mntinns
NAIF filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U_S_C_ § 1983 for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of
as next friend of Abdullah T. Hameen, a former death law nr fact, Ptesent nevvlv dtseeveted evidence Ot to
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04—cv—00407-GMS Document 38-4 Filed 06/15/2006 Page 3 of 4
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 2
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 735554 (D.De1.)
(Cite as: Not Reported in F.Supp.2d)
prevent manifest injustice. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnic/_gy, was made after Defendants filed a motion for
176 F.3d 669, 677 j3d Cir.1999) (citing Keene C org. summary judgment, Defendants have not shown they
v. Int'] Fial Ins. Co., 561 F.Supp. 656, 665 are substantially or unduly prejudiced by the
gN.D.Ill.1983); North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reins. amendment. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not
52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir.l995) (citations omitted). acted in bad faith or had dilatory motives in failing to
Parties should remain mindful that a motion for add Ms. Hameen or file the RLUIPA claim in the
reconsideration is not merely an opportunity to original Complaint. Further, the Court finds no undue
"accomplish [the] repetition of arguments that were or unexplained delay on the Plaintiffs' part,
or should have been presented to the court particularly because they are acting pro se.
previously." Karr v. Castle, 768 F.Supp. 1087, 1093
lD.Del.1991) (citing Brambles USA., Inc. v.
Blocker 735 F.Supp. 1239, 1240-41 gD.Del.l990l. II. Whether Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To Amend
However, a court should reconsider a prior decision if Should Be Denied With Regard To Ms. Hameen On
it overlooked facts or precedent that reasonably Statute Of Limitation Grounds
would have altered the result. Id (citing Weissman v.
Fruchtman 124 F .R.D. 559, 560 lS.D.N.Y.1989)). Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' amendment
adding Ms. Hameen should be denied on statute of
limitation grounds.
DISCUSSION
The Supreme Court has held that the state statute of
*2 For the reasons discussed, the Court concludes limitations for personal injury actions applies to §
that State Defendants have not identified errors of 1983 claims. See Owens v. Okure 488 U.S. 235, 239
law or fact, newly discovered evidence, or manifest (1989); Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 269 §1985l;
injustice sufficient to allow the Court to grant the Smith v. Cty of Pittsburgh, 764 F.2d 188, 194 13d
motion for reconsideration. Q3). In Delaware, the limitations period for a
personal injury claim is two years. Del.Code Ann. tit.
10, § 8119 (19741; McDowell v. Delaware State
I. Whether Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To Amend Police 88 F.3d 188, 190 (3d Cir.1996).
Should Be Denied As The Product Of Undue Delay
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(cl allows
Defendants first contend that Plaintiffs' motion is the amendments that add a party despite the running of
product of undue delay. Defendants specifically an applicable state statute of limitations in certain
contend that Mr. Hackett possessed the information circumstances. Fed. R. Civ P. 15gc)(3l. To ameliorate
he added to his Second Amended Complaint at the the running ofthe statute of limitations, Rule 15lc)(3)
time he filed his First Amended Complaint and, imposes three conditions, all of which must be met
therefore, he acted in a dilatory manner. Defendants for a party to successfully relate back an amended
further contend that it was only after Mr. Hackett complaint adding a new plaintiff. See Singletary v.
received Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment Pennsylvania Degot ot Corrections 266 F.3d 186,
(D.I.27), wherein Defendants argued that Mr. Hackett 193-94 g3d Cir.200l) (describing the three elements
lacked standing, that Mr. Hackett filed the Second of Rule 15lcll3l); see also Nelson v. County ot
Amended Complaint adding Shakeerah Hameen, Mr. Allegheny, 60 F.3d 1010, 1014 n. 7 (3d Cir.1995)
Hameen's widow, as a plaintiff. (noting that the relation back of amendments applies
equally to amendments changing and adding
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15la) declares that plaintiffs). The three elements of Rule 15gc)(3) are
leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so whether 1) the claim arose out of the same conduct,
requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15{at In the absence of transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be
substantial or undue prejudice, denial of a motion for set forth in the original pleading, 2) whether the
leave to amend a pleading "must be based on bad defendant had notice of the filing of the action within
faith or dilatory motives, truly undue or unexplained the period provided by Rule 4(m) and will not be
delay, repeated failures to cure the deficiency by prejudiced in maintaining a defense, and 3) the newly
amendments previously allowed, or futility of named plaintiffs failed to add their names to the
amendment." Lorenz v. CSX Corg., 1 F.3d 1406, complaint because of a mistake. Fed.R.Civ.P.
1414 {3d Cir.1993). 15gcll3l; Nelson, 60 F.3d at 1015.
The Court concludes that, although the amendment *3 The Court finds that, in the circumstances of this
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04—cv—00407-Gl\/IS Document 38-4 Filed 06/15/2006 Page 4 of 4
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 3
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 735554 (D.Del.)
(Cite as: Not Reported in F.Supp.2d)
case, Defendants had notice of and will not be issued this date;
prejudiced in maintaining a defense to the § 1983
claim. With respect to the third element, the Court IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion To
finds that the facts in the instant case demonstrate Reconsider The Court's Order Granting Plaintiffs
that but for Mr. Hackett‘s mistake, Ms. I-Iameen Motion To Amend The Complaint (D.I.27) filed by
would have been named in the Complaint. State Defendants is DENIED.
Fed.R.Civ.P. l5(cl(3)gBl.
D.Del.,2005.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that under N.A.I.F. Inc. v. Snyder
Rule l5(c)(3l Plaintiffs amendment adding Ms. Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 735554
Hameen as a plaintiff is entitled to relate back to the (D.Del.)
filing of the Complaint.
Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top)
III. Whether Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To Amend • l:03CV00506 (Docket) (May. 23, 2003)
Should Be Denied With Regard To The RLUIPA
Claim END OF DOCUMENT
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' motion to amend
adding a RLUIPA claim should be denied because
the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to consider the
constitutionality of RLUIPA.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure l5(c)(2) allows an
amendment stating a different claim than the original
Complaint to relate back to the date of the original
Complaint if the new claim is within the Court's
jurisdiction and arises out of the conduct, transaction,
or occurrence set forth in the original Complaint.
Fed.R.Civ.P. I5(c)j2).
The Court concludes that the RLUIPA claim is
within the Court's federal question jurisdiction and
arises from the conduct set forth in the original
Complaint. Thus, the Court concludes that
Defendants‘ Motion To Reconsider (D.I.27) should
be denied with respect to the addition of the RLUIPA
claim.
CONCLUSION
In sum, the Court concludes that State Defendants
have not identified errors of law or fact, newly
discovered evidence, or manifest injustice sufficient
to allow the Court to grant the motion for
reconsideration.
An appropriate Order will be entered.
ORDER
At Wilmington, this 30 day of March 2005, for the
reasons discussed in the Memorandum Opinion
© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04-cv-00407-GMS

Document 38-4

Filed 06/15/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00407-GMS

Document 38-4

Filed 06/15/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00407-GMS

Document 38-4

Filed 06/15/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00407-GMS

Document 38-4

Filed 06/15/2006

Page 4 of 4