Benson v. Harpstead
- Donovan Frank
- 0:17-cv-00266
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Benson v. Johnson Piper, Judge Leung denied Michael D. Benson’s late motion to amend because he showed no good cause under the scheduling order.
Michael D. Benson and the defendants in the case; the ruling prevented Benson from adding the proposed claims and defendants through this motion.
What happened
In Benson v. Johnson Piper et al., Michael D. Benson, representing himself, asked to amend his complaint after the deadline in the court’s scheduling order had passed. He sought to add defendants, expand allegations about religious freedom, replead a previously dismissed First Amendment claim, and assert claims against Dr. Jennifer Tippett based on a risk assessment and hearing testimony.
The court applied the rule requiring a party who misses a scheduling deadline to show good cause, meaning a diligent effort to meet the deadline despite circumstances preventing compliance. The court found that Benson did not explain his delay. It also found that he knew the facts supporting some proposed claims before the deadline, and that adding defendants after discovery closed would cause additional discovery, delay, and prejudice to the defendants.
Judge Tony N. Leung denied Benson’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. The order left prior consistent orders in effect. The court took no action on any request to dismiss defendants because those defendants were already no longer part of the litigation under an earlier order.
The detailed version
- Benson v. Harpstead · No. 0:17-cv-00266
- Donovan Frank
- Nov. 6, 2019
Background
Michael D. Benson, proceeding without a lawyer, moved for permission to amend his complaint. The court’s April 11, 2019, pretrial scheduling order required motions to amend pleadings or add parties to be filed by June 14, 2019. Fact discovery closed on September 13, 2019. Benson filed his motion more than three months after the amendment deadline and about two weeks after discovery closed.
Benson sought to add individuals he said were involved in the events at issue and whose identities he learned during discovery. He also sought to add factual allegations concerning alleged interference with his religious freedom, replead a previously dismissed First Amendment claim, and bring claims against Dr. Jennifer Tippett based on a 2017 Sexual Violence Risk Assessment and her testimony at a 2018 hearing concerning whether he should be discharged from civil commitment.
The court noted that, to the extent Benson sought to dismiss certain defendants, it took no action because those defendants were already no longer part of the litigation under an earlier order.
Analysis
Because Benson filed after the scheduling-order deadline, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which permits changing a schedule only for good cause and the judge’s consent. The court explained that good cause primarily depends on the moving party’s diligence—whether the party tried diligently to meet the deadline but could not reasonably do so.
The court found that Benson did not address the expired deadline, cite the good-cause standard, explain why he filed late, or otherwise attempt to establish good cause. The court also found that Benson’s complaints about discovery responses did not connect any alleged discovery problem to the timing of his motion.
The court further concluded that Benson had not acted diligently. The events supporting his proposed First Amendment claim and claims against Dr. Tippett occurred between 2016 and 2018 and therefore were known to him before the amendment deadline. The court noted that he had nearly three months between dismissal of the First Amendment claim and the amendment deadline but gave no explanation for failing to seek amendment during that period.
As to the proposed additional defendants, Benson said he learned their identities through discovery. The defendants stated that they mailed responses to his interrogatories on June 10, about four days before the deadline, although the record did not clearly establish when Benson received them. The court found no explanation for why he waited to seek amendment after learning of the individuals’ possible involvement. Because discovery had closed, allowing the additions would require more discovery, increase delay, and prejudice the defendants.
Disposition
Judge Tony N. Leung denied Benson’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. The order stated that all prior consistent orders remained in full force and effect. It also stated that violating the order or earlier consistent orders could lead to appropriate remedies or sanctions, including costs, fines, attorney fees, limits on evidence, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.