Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Alan Lewis DOERING Plaintiff - Appellant v. Wendy KELLEY, Director, ADC; Watson, Warden, Wrightsville Unit; Harris, Assistant Warden, Wrightsville Unit; Daniel Wayne Golden, Disciplinary Hearing Judge, ADC; Dwyatt E. Felts, Sergeant, Wrightsville Unit; Lowe, Major, Wrightsville Unit; John Doe, Assistant Director, ADC; Dale Reed, Deputy Director Defendants - Appellees
[Unpublished]
Arkansas inmate Alan Doering appeals after the district court 1 dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action asserting a failure-to-protect claim. He argues the district court erred in dismissing his complaint, in denying him leave to amend his complaint, and in not allowing discovery to proceed.
We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Doering leave to amend his complaint, as the proposed amendments sought to add defendants and substantially new claims. See Fuller v. Sec’y of Def. of U.S., 30 F.3d 86, 89 (8th Cir. 1994) (concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion for leave to amend complaint where the amended complaint sought to add defendants and substantially different claims arising from fundamentally different facts). Thus, the merits of his claims in his motion to amend are not before this court. We further conclude, after careful de novo review, that the district court did not err in dismissing the original complaint, as the original complaint did not allege any facts indicating any defendant had failed to provide a reasonable response to a known substantial risk of serious harm. See Kelly v. City of Omaha, 813 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review); Young v. Selk, 508 F.3d 868, 872–873 (8th Cir. 2007) (discussing requirements for an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim). Finally, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery while it addressed the motion to dismiss. See Toben v. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, 751 F.3d 888, 895 (8th Cir. 2014) (district courts have wide discretion in handling discovery matters). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the recommended disposition of the Honorable Beth M. Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-2767
Decided: May 21, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)