Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 13, 2020

Fuller v. Hafoka

Judge
Patrick Schiltz
Docket
0:19-cv-00886
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
7
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Fuller v. Hafoka, Judge Thorson partly granted Fuller’s amendment request, allowing infection-related allegations and damages clarifications while denying other amendments.

Who this affects

Fontell Demann Fuller’s complaint was partially amended; the defendants were permitted to file a supplemental answer addressing the newly allowed allegations.

What happened

In Fuller v. Hafoka, Fontell Demann Fuller, who represented himself, asked to change his complaint in a civil-rights case. The request came more than five months after the court’s deadline, and Fuller did not provide the proposed revised complaint required by local rules.

The court allowed Fuller to add allegations that his injuries caused an infection in his left leg and related damages. It also allowed him to clarify that he seeks medical expenses and damages for pain and suffering. The court denied his other proposed amendments and denied a second, duplicate amendment motion as moot.

Judge Becky R. Thorson ruled that Fuller showed a sufficient reason for adding the infection allegations because he said he was unaware of them earlier, but did not show the required diligence for his other proposed changes.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Fuller v. Hafoka · No. 0:19-cv-00886
Judge
Patrick Schiltz
Date
Aug. 13, 2020

Background

Fontell Demann Fuller filed an amended complaint asserting 18 counts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, including excessive force, inadequate medical care, inadequate training and supervision, failure to intervene, conspiracy, medical negligence, and violations of Minnesota law.

The court’s August 1, 2019 scheduling order set December 2, 2019, as the deadline for motions to amend the pleadings. Fuller filed his motion on May 26, 2020, without defendants’ consent or the court’s permission. He also did not file a proposed amended pleading or a marked version showing the differences from his existing complaint, as required by Local Rule 15.1(b). A second motion to amend, filed at Doc. No. 71, was duplicative.

Analysis

Because Fuller moved to amend after the scheduling deadline, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which requires the moving party to show “good cause.” The primary factor is diligence—whether the existing schedule could not reasonably be met despite the party’s efforts.

The court found good cause for allegations concerning an infection in Fuller’s left leg. The court understood Fuller to be alleging that his injuries caused the infection and related swelling, and found that he was unaware of those facts when he filed his amended complaint. The court also allowed Fuller to clarify that he seeks medical expenses and damages for pain and suffering to the extent those damages are available under his existing claims.

The court found no good cause for the other proposed amendments because Fuller did not explain his delay and most of the proposed allegations duplicated allegations already in the amended complaint. The court noted that punitive damages were already pleaded, so another amendment concerning punitive damages was unnecessary. The court also stated that allowing the medical-expense amendment did not approve Fuller’s proposed method of calculating those damages.

Disposition

The court granted Fuller’s Motion to Amend Pleading at Doc. No. 66 to the extent that the operative complaint includes the specified infection-related factual allegations and the clarification seeking pain-and-suffering damages and medical expenses. All other proposed amendments were denied. Fuller’s second Motion to Amend Pleading at Doc. No. 71 was denied as moot. The court ordered that any supplemental answer addressing the permitted amendments was due within 14 days.

The opinion identifies Judge Becky R. Thorson as the signing United States Magistrate Judge. The supplied case metadata identifies Patrick Schiltz as the judge, so the judge information should be reviewed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.