David Butler v. Suzane Bigelow, et al.

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA [6] DAVID BUTLER, Case No. 2:24-cv-00120-TL-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 8 MOTION TO AMEND (DKT. 27) SUZANE BIGELOW, et al., [9] Defendants. [10] 11 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff David Butler’s motion for leave to 12 file an amended complaint. Dkt. 27. For the reasons discussed below, the Court 13 GRANTS plaintiff’s motion. 14 BACKGROUND 15 On January 26, 2024, plaintiff filed his application to proceed in forma pauperis 16 (IFP), along with a handwritten proposed complaint. Dkt. No. 1, 1-1. The proposed 17 complaint asserted one claim, for medical malpractice, against two physicians at 18 Providence Regional Medical Center–Everett (PRMC), Dr. Suzanne Bigelow and 19 gastrointestinal physician Dr. King, who allegedly treated Plaintiff in February 2022, 20 while he was detained at Monroe Correctional Center (MCC). Dkt. 1-1 at 2–3. “Plaintiff 21 Butler[,] who suffers from mental illness[,]” alleged injuries due to Defendants’ 22 mishandling of his treatment after he “ingested two unpassable items” at MCC and was 23 transported to the emergency department at PRMC. Id. at 2–3. [24] 1 On February 2, 2024, under direction by the Clerk (see Dkt. Jan. 29, 2024), 2 plaintiff filed a new scan of his original complaint with redactions applied to personal 3 information in the exhibits. Dkt. 5. This version of the original complaint was entered on 4 the docket as “PROPOSED 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint.” Id. 5 A month later, on March 1, 2024, plaintiff filed a ten-page, handwritten document. 6 Dkt. 6. This document was docketed as “Motion to Amend Complaint.” Consistent with 7 the Local Civil Rules of this District, plaintiff’s submission included both his motion 8 seeking leave to amend his complaint and “a copy of the proposed amended pleading” 9 itself. LCR 15(a). The proposed amended complaint included additional details and 10 added new claims for negligence and deliberate indifference. Dkt. 6 at 7. It also added 11 new defendants: PRMC as an entity, and two unnamed employees of Monroe 12 Correctional Center, an RN and an “on call provider.” Id. at 2. 13 On March 29, 2024, the undersigned granted plaintiff’s IFP application. Dkt. 7. As 14 the Motion to Amend Complaint (Dkt. No. 6) had not yet been decided, the re-filed 15 version of the original complaint (Dkt. No. 5) became the operative complaint and was 16 re-posted by the Clerk at Docket No. 8. 17 On April 5, 2024, the Court issued an Order Directing Service which granted 18 plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (Dkt. 6) and directed the Clerk to serve certain 19 defendants the amended complaint. The order directed the Clerk of the Court to send 20 certain documents to Defendants Bigelow and King, but not PRMC or the MCC 21 defendants. As noted in a subsequent order, the omission of the newly added 22 defendants was inadvertent. Dkt. 13 at 1 n.1. Neither plaintiff nor the Clerk re-filed the 23 amended complaint on the docket after the motion to amend was granted. Though the [24] 1 amended complaint was the operative pleading, it remained at Docket No. 6, labeled as 2 “Motion to Amend Complaint”. 3 On July 11, 2025, District Judge Tana Lin again referred the matter to Magistrate 4 Judge Fricke and directed the Clerk to identify counsel from the Pro Bono Panel to 5 represent plaintiff. Judge Lin further directed the Clerk to re-post the document at 6 Docket No. 6 on the docket, labeled as “Amended Complaint” and listing, in docket text, 7 all Defendants (i.e., Suzanne Bigelow, King, Providence Regional Medical Center8 Everett, Provider, RN) named in that Complaint, and to add all defendants to the docket. 9 Dkt. 23, Dkt. 24. 10 On July 30, 2025, counsel was located for plaintiff and the Court entered a 11 motion to appoint Parker Palmer as counsel for plaintiff. Dkt. 25. 12 On September 23, 2025, plaintiff filed this motion to amend his complaint. Dkt. 13 27. The proposed Second Amended Complaint (SAC) names Unknown Correctional 14 Medical Providers I – V (plaintiff alleges they are employed within the Monroe 15 Correctional Complex), Providence Health, and Dr. Janet King as defendants in his 16 proposed second amended complaint. Dkt. 27-1 at 2. The proposed SAC alleges 17 plaintiff has “an exhaustively documented history of living with severe psychiatric 18 conditions which manifested in the ingestion of foreign bodies.” Id. ¶ 8. He asserts that 19 after experiencing auditory hallucinations he engaged in an act of self-harm on February 20 7, 2022, which required Department of Corrections staff to take him to the Providence 21 Regional Medical Center. Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff alleges he was taken to Providence 22 Regional Medical Center, and Dr. King provided him with medical treatment that 23 violated state and federal law. Id. at pp. 4-12. Plaintiff states that upon discharge from [24] 1 Providence, correctional medical providers at MCC were deliberately indifferent to his 2 serious medical needs. Dkt. 27-1 at pp. 7-9. 3 DOC entered a “Special Notice of Appearance” for the sole purpose of objecting 4 to plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. 28, 29. Neither Providence Health nor Dr. King have entered 5 an appearance in this case or responded to plaintiff’s motion. 6 DISCUSSION 7 “[A] party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent 8 or the court's leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Five factors are taken into account to 9 assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to 10 the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously 11 amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067 , 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). Not 12 all these factors carry equal weight and prejudice is the “touchstone.” Eminence Capital, 13 LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). 14 Absent a showing of prejudice or a strong showing of any of the remaining 15 factors, there is a presumption that leave to amend should be granted. Id. “In exercising 16 this discretion, a court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15—to 17 facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Roth v. 18 Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617 , 628 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. Webb, 655 19 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)). Generally, the analysis “should be performed with all 20 inferences in favor of granting the motion.” Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877 , 21 880 (9th Cir. 1999). “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing why 22 leave to amend should not be granted.” Hedglin v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., No. C1623 5127-BHS, 2016 WL 8738685 , at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 15, 2016). [24] 1 The Court grants leave to amend. As for the first three factors—bad faith, undue 2 delay, and prejudice to the opposing party—the Court discerns nothing in the record 3 sufficient to overcome Rule 15(a)’s presumption in favor of leave to amend. See 4 Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) 5 (prejudice to the opposing party “carries the greatest weight” and, absent prejudice or a 6 “strong showing” under the other factors, there is a presumption in favor of granting 7 leave to amend). 8 Plaintiff was not appointed counsel until July 31, 2025, and the instant motion 9 was filed on September 23, 2025. It is reasonable for newly appointed counsel to 10 require time to consult with their client, particularly when the client has a mental health 11 concern, to understand plaintiff’s claims and the existing docket history, and prepare a 12 motion for leave to amend the complaint. 13 And it appears DOC’s objection to plaintiff’s motion to amend is largely based on 14 the fact that the Court’s service order from April 5, 2024, did not include DOC as a 15 party. As discussed above, that some of the defendants did not receive the amended 16 complaint (Dkt. 6), including the providers at MCC, was inadvertent. The first page of 17 plaintiff’s Complaint listed only Bigelow and King. Dkt. 8 at 10. The motion to amend the 18 complaint listed more defendants, and was served by email on Bigelow, King, and the 19 Washington State Attorney General. Dkt. 6 at 1-2; Dkt. 10; see Dkt. 13 at 1, n.1. 20 Because of multiple motions and versions of the pro se pleading, Judge Lin issued an 21 order to clarify the record and counsel was ultimately appointed. Dkt. 23, 24, 25. 22 DOC has failed to demonstrate how they would be prejudiced by being added as 23 a defendant. The Court cannot discern any facts that would indicate plaintiff intended to [24] 1 file this motion in bad faith, with undue delay, or that defendants will be prejudiced. This 2 case is still in its early stages, and there are no impending deadlines or trial date. 3 The fourth and fifth factors likewise favor leave to amend. The Ninth Circuit has 4 repeatedly emphasized that “[a] district court abuses its discretion by denying leave to 5 amend unless amendment would be futile or the plaintiff has failed to cure the 6 complaint's deficiencies despite repeated opportunities.” AE ex rel. Hernandez v. Cnty. 7 of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2012); accord Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., 812 8 F. App'x 644, 645 (9th Cir. 2020). 9 The DOC defendants argue that plaintiff’s motion is futile because the statute of 10 limitations has run for the claims alleged against them. Furthermore, the DOC 11 defendants contend that because the new claims do not “relate back” to the amended 12 complaint, plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint does not avoid the statute of 13 limitations bar. 14 Claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are governed by the statute of 15 limitations of the local jurisdiction for personal injury actions. RK Ventures, Inc., v. City 16 of Seattle, 307 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2002). In Washington, personal injury actions must 17 be brought within three years. RCW § 4.16.080(2). Accordingly, the statute of limitations 18 applicable to plaintiff's § 1983 claims is three years. 19 Plaintiff asserts his cause of action against all defendants arose as early as 20 February 10, 2022, and that he filed his first amended complaint, naming DOC 21 employees, within the three-year statute of limitations. Dkt. 6. Plaintiff’s proposed 22 second amended complaint, which in part seeks to clarify the facts and claims alleged 23 against those employees, is not futile. Because on its face it appears plaintiff’s proposed [24] 1 second amended complaint was timely filed, the Court need not address whether 2 plaintiff has shown that the amendments relate back. If DOC determines that it should 3 assert a statute of limitations defense, it may do so in an answer, or in a pretrial motion. 4 Plaintiff asserts he is mentally ill, and as he was recently appointed counsel, this 5 is plaintiff’s first opportunity to file a proposed amended complaint with the assistance of 6 counsel. 7 The Court therefore GRANTS plaintiff’s leave to amend his complaint. Plaintiff is 8 instructed to file and serve the Second Amended Complaint in compliance with Federal 9 Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule 15. 10 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties shall 11 have 14 days from service of this Order to object. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to 12 file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of de novo review 13 by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), and can result in a waiver of those 14 objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); 15 Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). [18] Dated this 14th day of November, 2025. [20] 21 A Theresa L. Fricke [22] United States Magistrate Judge