Fleming v. United States

Background

Rhonda Fleming moved for leave to file a third amended complaint. She sought to clarify and support her existing Bivens claims and to add a claim against Bureau of Prisons Acting Director Lathrop in his official capacity. The added claim was intended to support her existing request for injunctive relief under the Eighth Amendment.

Fleming filed the motion on February 10, 2025, the deadline for amending pleadings. She had previously amended once as of right and once with the court’s permission, while proceeding without a lawyer. She was later represented by counsel. The court had previously denied a request to file a third amended complaint, but that denial was without prejudice to renewal, and the case was referred to the Federal Pro Bono Project.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that permission to amend pleadings should be freely given when justice requires. The court considered undue delay, bad faith or improper motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, prejudice to the opposing parties, and whether the amendment would be futile. The court noted that prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest weight among these factors.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Fleming’s motion was timely and that there was no evidence of bad faith or improper motive. It also found that she had not repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies identified in earlier complaints. The court noted that the purpose of appointing counsel was to give Fleming an opportunity to develop her legal theories with assistance.

The court concluded that allowing amendment would not prejudice the defendants because the case was in its early stages and no discovery schedule had been set. The defendants argued that Fleming’s request for injunctive relief had already been addressed by a classwide consent decree in a separate proceeding. The court found that the defendants had not provided enough information to establish that the consent decree made Fleming’s claim moot. The court explained that the decree left open the possibility that Fleming might not receive all the relief she claimed to need.

The defendants also argued that Fleming’s transfer from FCI Dublin mooted her request for injunctive relief. The court rejected that argument at this stage because Fleming alleged that she still required ongoing medical care to address harm suffered at FCI Dublin. The court further found that amendment was not clearly futile because it was not certain that no facts could support a valid claim for injunctive relief.

Disposition

Judge Rita F. Lin granted Fleming’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The proposed complaint became the operative complaint. The court also lifted the previously entered stay that had allowed substitution of government counsel. The order did not decide the merits of Fleming’s underlying claims.