Milne et al v. Gaden et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DWAYNE MILNE and JACLYNN PAUL,as
Guardians of B.M.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DR. GREG GADEN;REBECCA LEEDS;
HOLLI HOFFMAN; CHARLIE SERSEN;
KARN BAKER; BROOKE CHENEY;
JAIMIE MUTTER;LEAH LUDWIG;
JESSICA CALLUM; UNKNOWN STAFF
AT KNOLLWOOD ELEMENTARY;
DR. LORI SIMON; RAPID CITY
AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT;
RAPID CITY SCHOOL BOARD; and
SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION,
Defendants,
5:22-CV-5017-LLP
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are a motion to dismiss and a motion to take judicial notice filed
by defendant South Dakota Department of Education(Docs. 19 and 21), and Plaintiffs' motion to
amend the complaint(Doc. 24). For the following reasons, the motion to amend the complaint is
granted and the motion to dismiss is denied as moot.
BACKGROUND
On February 17, 2022, Plaintiffs Dwayne Milne and Jaclynn Paul as guardians of B.M.
("Plaintiffs") filed the instant action against the defendants listed above in the caption, including
the South Dakota Department of Education ("Department"). (Doc. 1.) The original complaint
included a claim under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act(IDEA). (Doc. 1, Iflf 21
and Count IX). On February 28,2022,Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint.^ (Doc. 11.) The
first amended complaint deleted the claim under the IDEA but retained the other claims brought
^ Plaintiffs' first amended complaint was fiied as a matter of course within 21 days after serving the original
complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A).
Case 5:22-cv-05017-LLP Document 44 Filed 07/26/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

against the Department pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1983,the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA),
§ 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and SDCL 27B-8-36.
After the Department appeared and filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a motion to
amend the complaint on May 5,2022. (Doc. 24.) The proposed second amended complaint-strikes
the South Dakota Department of Education from the caption and adds "Unknown Staff at the
Department "in their individual and official capacity." (Doc. 24-1.) It also adds a new allegation
that "Upon information and belief, the South Dakota Department of Education, Rapid City Area
School District, and Rapid City School Board were put on notice ofthe abusive and discriminatory
policies in place at JCnollwood Elementary Sehool prior to the events that gave rise to this lawsuit,
but failed to take corrective action." (Doc. 24-1,|f 73.)
The Department urges the Court to deny leave to file the second amended complaint,
arguing that the allegations in the second amended complaint are conclusory and are not specific
enough to ascertain the name or identity of the unknovm staff at the Department after discovery.
(Doc. 32.) In reply to the Department's argument, Plaintiffs assert:
Plaintiffs' have belief and knowledge that the South Dakota Department of
Education was notified of systems and programs at Knollwood that led to B.M.'s
abuse, prior to the abuse taking place. However,in the interest of efficiency for this
lawsuit. Plaintiff chose not to name every single individual from the South Dakota
Department ofEducation listed as an employee. Rather,Plaintiff wishes to discover
who at the Department ofEducation had knowledge ofthe events that preceded this
lawsuit, so as to avoid an unnecessary expedition. Considering the Department of
Education's role regarding special education in South Dakota, it absolutely had
knowledge of B.M.'s abuse and neglect at Knollwood. This fact alone is specific
enough to proceed to discovery and uncover who had knowledge,the extent ofthat
knowledge,and what was done to remedy the discriminatory systems and programs
taking place at Knollwood. See Perez v. Does 1-10, 931 F.3d 641, 646 (8th Cir.
2019)(quoting Estate ofRosenberg by Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37(8th
Cir. 1995)) (discussing "an action may proceed against a party whose name is
unknown if the complaint makes allegations specific enough to permit the identity
ofthe party to be ascertained after reasonable discovery").
(Doc. 34, pp. 3^.)
Case 5:22-cv-05017-LLP Document 44 Filed 07/26/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

DISCUSSION
After amending a complaint onee as a matter of right, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
allow further amendment "only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave."
Fed. R. Civ P. 15(a)(2). "The court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Id.
The Court has discretion whether or not to grant leave to amend. Zenith Radio Corp. v.
Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330 (1971). Factors to consider in determining whether
leave to amend should be granted include but are not limited to:(1) whether the motion was filed
in bad faith or with dilatory motive;(2)whether the motion was filed with undue delay;(3)whether
leave to amend would be unduly prejudicial to the opposing parties; and(4) whether the proposed
amendment would be futile. See Bell v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 160 F.3d 452, 454 (8th Cir.1998)
(citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). The Court concludes that Plaintiffs did not
file the motion to amend in bad faith, or with dilatory motive or undue delay. There is no showing
that the defendants would be prejudiced or that the proposed amendment is futile. These factors
favor granting leave to amend.
Plaintiffs are not seeking to add a new cause of action; rather, they maintain that the
proposed second amended complaint more accurately states the appropriate defendants, and that
they will be able to discover the names of individual Department employees who had knowledge
of B.M.'s alleged abuse and neglect at Knollwood Elementary School.
In general, fictitious parties may not be named as defendants in a civil action. Estate of
Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir. 1995). An action may proceed against a party
whose name is unknown, however, if the complaint makes sufficiently specific allegations to
permit the identity of the party to be ascertained after reasonable discovery. Munz v. Parr, 758
F.2d 1254,1257(8th Cir. 1985). In this ease,the second amended complaint contains an allegation
sufficiently specific to permit the identity of Unknown Staff at the South Dakota Department of
Education to be ascertained after reasonable discovery. Plaintiffs will seek to identify those
Department employees who were aware ofthe alleged abuse ofB.M. "If discovery identifies other
persons who should be named as defendants, it will be simple enough for plaintiff to add them by
amendment, after properly securing leave of court." Estate ofRosenberg, 56 F.3d at 37.
The proposed second amended complaint clarifies and corrects certain matters related to
the proper defendants in this case, and Plaintiffs will be granted leave to amend. Because the
3
Case 5:22-cv-05017-LLP Document 44 Filed 07/26/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

second amended complaint does not name the Department as a defendant, the Department's
motion to dismiss is moot. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. That Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint(Doc. 24) is granted, and Plaintiffs shall
file the Second Amended Complaint attached to their motion to amend.
2. That Defendant South Dakota Department of Education's motion to dismiss and
motion to take judicial notice are denied as moot. (Docs. 19 and 21.)
3. That all future pleadings filed in this case shall contain the heading set forth in the
Second Amended Complaint.
Dated this ^day of _, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
\iiVSimJL
iwrence L. Piersol
United States District Judge
ATTEST"
MATTHEW W. THELEN,CLERK
Case 5:22-cv-05017-LLP Document 44 Filed 07/26/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>