Madeux v. County of Marin

Background

Teri Madeux, through her guardian ad litem Sharla Whitty, moved for permission to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. The existing claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and concern the death of Madeux’s son while he participated in Project Hope, a housing program for people released from prison during the pandemic. The County of Marin was the only defendant remaining in the case at the time of the motion.

The proposed amended complaint would remove the County of Marin and add Karen Cox and Jeff Gill, whom the opinion identifies as alleged parole officers and employees of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Madeux alleged that Cox and Gill were deliberately indifferent to her son’s medical needs while he participated in Project Hope.

Rulings

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, a former defendant, asked for permission to oppose the motion as an amicus curiae, meaning a nonparty offering information or legal argument to the court. The court denied that request. It explained that the department was not a party, would not become a party even if the amendment were allowed, and had not cited authority permitting a nonparty to oppose a motion to amend a complaint in that manner. The court therefore did not consider the department’s proposed opposition.

Because the deadline for amending the pleadings had passed, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), which requires good cause to modify a scheduling order, and then Rule 15(a), which generally favors allowing amendments when justice requires. The court credited Madeux’s representation that she and her counsel learned the facts supporting the proposed claims during a deposition of the department on April 30, 2024. It found that she acted diligently and had shown good cause under Rule 16.

Under Rule 15, the court found no evidence of potential prejudice to Cox, Gill, or any other party, and no strong showing of the other factors relevant to amendment, including bad faith, undue delay, futility, or repeated failure to correct earlier pleading problems. The court therefore granted Madeux’s motion for leave to file the Fourth Amended Complaint and terminated docket number 111.

What the ruling did not decide

The court expressly stated that its finding of diligence did not decide whether the proposed claims against Cox and Gill were barred by the statute of limitations. The department had argued that the claims were filed more than two years after Madeux’s son’s death and that Madeux had not alleged facts supporting use of the discovery rule. The court did not consider those arguments for this motion, but stated that Cox and Gill could raise them after the Fourth Amended Complaint was filed.