Langton v. Town of Chester Library Board

Background

Mary Langton brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and represented herself. The court’s earlier ruling dismissed her First Amendment retaliation claims and one due-process claim but allowed her due-process claim against the Town of Chester Library Board to continue. The Library Board was later left as the only defendant in the case.

Langton first asked for permission to file an amended complaint in July 2017. The proposed complaint sought to add claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), based on her allegation that several people conspired to alter a report by Devora Lindeman. Langton alleged that the version of the report used by the Library Board was false and defamatory, while an authentic version cleared her of wrongdoing.

Magistrate Judge Lisa M. Smith denied that request. She ruled that Langton had not shown the required good cause for missing the deadline to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). She also ruled that the proposed amendment would be futile because it did not state a legally sufficient claim under Section 1985(2). Langton objected to that order.

While the first objection was pending, Langton sought permission to file a second amended complaint. That proposal again relied on the alleged conspiracy involving the Lindeman Report. It also sought to add claims based on several provisions of Title 18 of the United States Code, a legal-malpractice claim, a claim under Section 1983 related to free speech, and many new defendants, including previously dismissed defendants and lawyers involved in the case and a related state-court action.

Judge Smith denied the second request. The order cited Langton’s failure to comply with Judge Smith’s individual filing rule requiring a pre-motion letter. It also stated that the proposed amendment was too late, that private citizens generally could not bring the proposed Title 18 claims because those laws did not provide a private right to sue, and that some proposed claims appeared untimely. Langton objected to that order as well.

Standard of Review

Because the amendment requests were non-dispositive pretrial matters, Judge Roman reviewed Judge Smith’s orders under the deferential standard in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). He could modify or set aside the orders only if they were clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A ruling is clearly erroneous when, after reviewing the evidence, the court is firmly convinced that a mistake was made. A ruling is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies the relevant law or procedural rules.

First Proposed Amendment

Judge Roman concluded that Judge Smith properly found no good cause for Langton’s delay. Although Langton said she learned of the new conduct through deposition testimony in April 2017, documents filed in the related state-court action supported the conclusion that she knew the facts underlying the proposed claims as early as December 6, 2016. The court therefore found no clear error or legal error in the decision to deny the first amendment as untimely.

The court also upheld the alternative ruling that the proposed Section 1985(2) claim would have been futile. For a claim under the statute’s first clause, a plaintiff must allege a conspiracy to deter a witness from attending or testifying in a federal case through force, intimidation, or threats, along with resulting injury. For a claim under the second clause, a plaintiff must allege a conspiracy to interfere with justice in a state or territory, motivated by an intent to deny equal protection and by racial, ethnic, or other class-based discriminatory animus.

Judge Roman agreed that Langton had not alleged facts showing that the defendants reached an agreement to conspire with the required level of detail. He further agreed that the proposed claim did not sufficiently allege witness intimidation under the first clause or racial, ethnic, or class-based discriminatory motive under the second clause. The court rejected Langton’s remaining objections to the 2017 Order, including objections concerning disputed facts and the treatment of her self-represented status.

Second Proposed Amendment

Judge Roman found no clear error in denying the second amendment for failure to comply with Judge Smith’s individual rules. Langton had not submitted the required pre-motion letter, and the court found no reason to conclude that Judge Smith abused her discretion in enforcing the rule.

The court also found no clear error in the alternative reasons identified in the 2019 Order, including the lateness of the proposed amendment, the lack of a private right to bring the proposed Title 18 claims, and the possibility that some claims were time-barred.

The court did not decide Langton’s objection concerning issue preclusion because Judge Smith’s 2017 Order had not addressed that issue, and Judge Roman could not identify an implicit ruling on it.

Disposition

Judge Roman affirmed Judge Smith’s 2017 Order denying Langton’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint and affirmed the 2019 Order denying her motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Langton’s original complaint remained the operative complaint. The opinion also directed the Library Board’s counsel to mail Langton a copy of the order and file proof of service.